I40 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

or any party, of either defendant or plaintiff, or of any one of many plaintiff's or defendants. He is the officer of the court, its execu- tive hand. The appointment and choice of the receiver resting in the discretion of the court — the sound but personal rather than judicial discretion — are to be made in the interest of all parties or persons concerned or interested in any actual or legal sense. Naturally and inevitably, with the rise and growth of corpora- tions, receiverships were extended to them, and, chiefly within the last thirty years, railway corporations have not only been subjected to this remedy, but railway receiverships have become by far the most important feature of this branch of equity, especially in the courts of the United States. This application to railways presents some peculiar features. Railways being quasi public corporations, — a feature greatly enlarged by our courts within the last dozen or twenty years, — and their business being peculiar and virtually monopolistic, the possession of railways by courts of necessity in- volves far more than the collection of r^nts and incomes of lands or the produce of real estate ; it involves the management of an in- tricate, technical, highly specialized business, and the operation of special, and often vast, mechanism and mechanical instruments and appliances. Owing also to the fact that railways are almost always covered by mortgages of differing ranks and kinds, the holders of the mortgage bonds being numerous and widely scattered, the direct pecuniary interests to be affected and served by a receiver of a railway are of the highest and widest importance and interest. The proper result of these and such considerations might well seem to be a high degree of caution and reluctance on the part of courts and judges in appointing railway receivers. Such is the theory, often announced and repeated by courts ; but the fact is, as all must concede, that in later days very little heed has been given to this theory, and suitors have asked for and courts have granted the remedy of receivers with a readiness, not to say zeal, which would once have been regarded as scandalous. Not seldom a race has been run between State and Federal courts, and between different State or Federal courts, for possession by receivers of railway properties. In the definition of a receiver which has been presented must be marked several conditions of the appointment which should be kept in mind. Some of them are these: (i) an indifferent person is to be selected ; (2) he is to be the mere hand and agent of the court ; (3) he is to be appointed and to hold pcnde7tie lite ; (4) the inter-