(dissenting). Mr. Justice Hart and I have no quarrel with the authorities cited by the majority in their opinion on the rehearing. These authorities are sound and applicable to the usual and ordinary orders made by courts appointing receivers to take charge of the assets of insolvent corporations, but they have no application to the order under which.the present receiver was appointed and acting. We are of the opinion that the peculiar and broad language of this order was sufficient to authorize the receiver to be made a party to suits to establish liability of the corporation for injuries accruing prior to his appointment as well as those that accrued after his appointment. We know of no statute nor any rule of the common law that prohibits a court, when it takes charge of the assets of an insolvent corporation, to conserve and administer same for the benefit of the corporation and the creditors thereof and all concerned therein, to make an order as broad as the one here under review. We can see that such an order would serve a wise and useful purpose in preventing confusion and enabling the court, having charge of the assets and the administration thereof, to dispose of all matters in which the property of the corporation is in any wise affected. The language of the order when taken as a whole plainly shows that it was not the intention that liability should be fixed against the receiver as such for acts of the corporation causing injury prior to his appointment.
The order was doubtless intended by the court to provide a convenient, simple and easy'method of establishing claims and settling all controversies in which the assets of the corporation in the hands of the receiver might be in any manner affected.
We are; therefore, still of the opinion that the court erred in striking from the complaint all items of damage alleged to have accrued to appellee prior to the appointment of the receiver.
Hart, J., concurs in the dissent.