The third section of the act of congress of June 30, 1876, provides that, when the receiver has fully paid all the claims against the bank, the assets may be turned over to an agent nominated by the stockholders. This agent succeeds to all the assets of the bank and is entitled to-be substituted in any pending suit.1 He, too, is an officer of the United States in the same sense that the receiver is.2 He is indictable under the laws of the United States for misappropriation or embezzlement of the assets of the bank.3 If the shareholders have paid an assessment upon their stock to the comptroller, and the assets after settlement of claims against the bank have been turned over to the agent of the stockholders, a shareholder, who has become such by a purchase for full value from a stockholder who had failed to pay his assessment, is not entitled to share in the assets until those who have paid their assessments are reimbursed.4 "When all the claims against a bank are paid the stockholders succeed to the assets,5 but not until that time are they entitled to any share in the property of the bank.6

12 See Sec. 337, ante, and note 15 to Sec. 334, ante.

13 The stockholders would be within the 94th equity rule. The creditors should practically allege the same facts as the rule requires. See Ex parte Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443.

National Bank v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 94 U. S. 437. But a creditor cannot sue the comptroller for this interest. Chemical Nat Bank v. Bailey, 12 Blatch. 480.

2 See Sec. 159, ante.

3 Crawford v. Bank of Wilmington, 61 N. C. 136; Ringo v. Biscoe, 13 Ark. 563; Bank of Louisiana v.

Fowler, 10 Rob. (La.) 196. See Att-wood v. Bank of Chillicothe, 10 Ohio, 526.

1 McConville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277.

2 Ex parte Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443.

3 United States v. Jewett, 84 Fed. R 142. It follows that a receiver would also be indictable. It seems difficult to reconcile the statement contained in this case with the doctrine of the last cited case. The court clearly mistakes the sense in which the word "agent" is used in United States v. North way, 120 U. S. 327.