highest importance that its affairs should be administered in one homogeneous and concentrated management, and that one court should determine the general rights of the parties at interest and control the distribution of the funds. The original bill is filed in the court of the domicile of the corporation, and similar bills aro filed in the courts of each district in the several States in which are situated assets to be administered. The court first assuming jurisdiction over the person of the defendant corporation and appointing a receiver is the court of primary jurisdiction, while the other courts which lend their aid to the administration exercise auxiliary jurisdiction.

Under the Federal procedure, the Receiver appointed in the primary court is, by this system of auxiliary proceedings, usually appointed Receiver in the several circuits in which the property: is situated. The administration of the assets is thus centralized. The ancillary is but part of the home receivership. There is but one administration, one distribution. Each person whose interests may be involved, whether he lives in one State or another, will receive his exact proportionate benefit as if all were citizens of the same. For the purposes of the suit there is but one jurisdiction, one administration, one distribution and one incidental expenditure. It is obvious that no quicker, cheaper or more equitable administration could be had.1 The relations of the courts are governed by the rules of comity. In order to insure equality among all parties at interest, it is evident that some one court must determine their rights, although the assets may be scattered through many jurisdictions. The court of primary jurisdiction is selected for this purpose, not because of any paramount inherent right, other than that of having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and of being first in time.2

The domiciliary court first entertaining the bill making the appointment of the receiver has jurisdiction of all matters affecting the general administration. The auxiliary courts confine themselves to the getting in of the assets within their respective

Towle v. American B. L. & I. Soc., 60 Fed. 131; High on Receivers, 3d Ed., p. 340.

2

Shinny v. North American S. L & B. Co, 97 Fed. 9.

territorial jurisdictions and of protecting and enforcing the rights of the receiver of the defendant corporation therein. Should any purely local claim be presented, the auxiliary court will exercise its independent judgment with reference thereto. The taking of all accounts, the general references to Masters, the control of the receiver and the distribution of all funds belonging to the estate are remitted through comity exclusively to the primary court. It is manifest that any other rule would result in great confusion and unnecessary expense.1

Where a bill for the winding up of the affairs and the distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation is pending, all subsequent proceedings filed in that court, in any way relating to that cause, are in the true sense ancillary and dependent. Thus all interventions filed for the purpose of asserting any interest at the instance of any party, or of receiving any benefit, as well as all proceedings for the purpose of protecting the property rights or of enforcing obligations due to the estate, are strictly ancillary. Ancillary proceedings may be appropriately instituted in courts exercising only auxiliary jurisdiction. The subsequent proceedings in the auxiliary court depend upon and are ancillary to the bill pending therein, rather than upon that in the court of primary jurisdiction.

But for the fact that this paper has already grown to a forbiding length, it might be of interest to further pursue this investigation and point out the practice by means of which this auxil iary power can be most appropriately invoked and enforced. The subject is one that cannot be exhausted on an occasion like this, and hence I must forbear to further tax your patience.

1 Central Trust Co. v. E. T. V. & G. R. Co., 30 Fed. 895; Miles v. New South B. & L. Ass'n, 95 Fed. 919; also 99 Fed. 4; New York P. & O. R. Co. v. New York L, E. & W. R. Co., 58 Fed. 268; McMurray v. Gosney, 106 Fed. 11.

For other authorities bearing upon the question of the relations between courts exercising primary and auxiliary jurisdiction, see Wheeling Bridge Co. v. Cochran, 86 Fed. 500; Clyde v. R. & D. R. Co., 56 Fed. 531; Ames v. Un. Pac. R. Co., 60 Fed. 967-974; Smith v. Taggart, 87 Fed. 95; Failey v. Tailbee, 55 Fed. 892; Parsons v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 31 Fed. 305; Ware v. Supreme Sitting, 28 Atl. Rep. 1041; Platt v. Philadelphia R Co., 54 Fed. 569; Baldwin v. Hosmer, 59 N. W. 432, 25 L. R. A. 743; Burwell v. Supreme Sitting, 36 N. E. 1065; Jennings v. Phila. & R. R'y Co., 23 Fed. 569.

1

APPENDIX H.

THE BIBLE IN THE LAWYER'S LIBRARY.

PAPER BY JOS. HANSELL MERRILL, OF THOMASVILLE.

Perhaps it is but professional egotism, but I have a deep conviction that of all people there is greatest need for a lawyer to have a broad education, to know something, yes much, of everything else, as well as everything of the law.

Since Ingersoll's sophomoric declamations of other men's doubts and blasphemies, and the effusions of the "higher critics," it has become quite the fashion to study the Bible. The deliverances of these worthies set people to wondering what was the truth, and to get about finding out for themselves, so that now more than ever before, we find the schools and colleges and learned societies devoting time and labor and money towards finding out what is in the Bible, and what are the evidences of its authenticity.

I had presented to me several years ago five ponderous volumes bound in law sheep, Matthew Henry's Commentaries, inscribed on the inside cover of one of which was, "That my brother may be conversant with the laws of the Kingdom of God, as well as those of the commonwealth of Georgia." The result is that being myself a straggler along after this throng of Bible students, and having seen some of the treasures in this storehouse for lawyers, and being mindful of the injunction in the closing lines of the book, "And let him that heareth say come," I thought that it would not be amiss to undertake to entertain you with some citations of special interest to lawyers in this book, which has been aptly said to be "A book for all ages, and for all nations, for all classes of men and all states of

society, for all capacities of the intellect and all necessities of the soul. It is so conservative as to make it a duty to revere the past; so progressive as to be in advance of the most enlightened age." (Danl. March.)

So, if I am telling you what is already too familiar to be entertaining, pardon me on the score of the enthusiasm common

to recent converts.

THE LAW.

In it we read (Neh. 8:7) of the first law school of which we have any knowledge, that opened by Nehemiah, in which, with the help of a large faculty, he "caused the people to understand the law," the law given by Moses.

We study the old Grecian law, the Civil law, the Code of Napoleon, the English Common Law; why not the Mosaic? For pure water, which is the emblem of truth, we trace the stream to the fountain head. If there be a human fountain head for law surely that is Moses. If the measure be antiquity, or wisdom, or the number who obey, or the length of time influenced, Moses stands preeminently above all others, even leaving out of consideration all question of his divine inspiration. Judging by my own experience it will be a surprise to note to what an extent the Mosaic Law is the foundation of our own. I was first led to study this by a reference from Williams on Executors to Num. 27:8-11, the Mosaic law on the subject of descent, in a case I had where there was no wife or children or brothers or sisters. I have since had occasion often to consult it, to compare our laws with that, and at times found considerable help.

We find in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, the first giving of the Ten Commandments, the foundation of all the law, of which all else is but an elaboration, since the germ of it all is contained in them. To them we trace all the acts which we call malum in se. By the light of them we determine what is right and what is wrong, which is the objective point in all our reasoning. They are the Constitution, and all laws that cannot stand the test of their requirements should be abrogated.

Note the preamble to this in Exodus 20:2, "I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." We read between the lines the assertion of the right to give the law, and the assurance also that it is given with a desire for the welfare of those to whom it is given. Is the more elaborate preamble to the Constitution of the United States or that to the Constitution of Georgia any more comprehensive?

Georgia's greatest Chief Justice, our beloved Bleckley, said to me some years ago at his summer home at Clarkesville, that it was necessary for a man to get "the spirit of the law if he would ever be a great lawyer, just as a musician must have rhythm in his soul." At every turn of a lawyer's life, every day, he is trying to follow the guidance of that which commands what is right, and prohibits what is wrong. wrong. In what book, what set of books, what library of the world is there such authoritative, such comprehensive, such comprehensible treatise on rights and wrongs as in the Bible? Whence otherwheres does the spirit of the law shine so brightly or bestow itself so abundantly? Is it not then just here that we may catch this spirit, get its inspiration and its guidance, lay the first broad foundation for the making of a lawyer?

Let us see what are some of these laws on subjects with which we are dealing every day. In the twenty-first chapter of Exodus, immediately following the decalogue, after disposing of the question of slavery, with which we are done, we come in the twelfth verse to the subject of homicides. For a deliberate killing the penalty is, "he shall surely be put to death." While "if God deliver him unto his hand" (a peculiar way of stating au accidental killing), a city of refuge is provided. This is not the first time the death penalty is ordered. We find the same law given to Noah (Gen. 9:6), "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." It is interesting to note that along with this law to Noah was also given authority to eat the animals, which required the taking of life, while Adam was allowed to eat only of the plants. After the fall the war is on, and