liable after the decree against Ambrose. | 171, 178, 40 L. ed. 383, 385, 16 Sup. Ct. 23 Cyc. 812; Minor v. Mechanics Rep. 258; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106, Bank, 1 Pet. 46, 73, 7 L. ed. 47, 59; 110, 35 L. ed. 358, 360, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. Smith v. Rines, 2 Sumn. 338, Fed. Cas. 712; Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. No. 13,100; Dicey, Parties, 234; Scs- 146, 151, 34 L. ed. 873, 874, 11 Sup. sions v. Johnson, 95 U. S. 347, 24 L. ed. Ct. Rep. 276; Buzard v. Houston, 119 596; Pelham v. Pace, Hempst. 223, Fed. U. S. 347, 352, 30 L. ed. 451, 454, 7 Sup. Cas. No. 10,911a; United States v. Lef- Ct. Rep. 249; Alger v. Anderson, 92 Fed. fler, 11 Pet. 86, 97, 9 L. ed. 642, 646, 696; New York Guaranty & Í. Co. v. 647; 23 Cyc. 1213; 39 Cyc. 530-534, 536; Memphis Water Co. 107 U. S. 205, 214, Carter v. Gibson, 61 Neb. 207, 52 L.R.A. 27 L. ed. 484, 488, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; 468, 85 N. W. 45. Greenwood, A. & W. R. Co. v. Strang, 77 Fed. 498; Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch, 69, 89, 3 L. ed. 271, 279; Walker v. Brown, 58 Fed. 23; United States v. Bitter Root Development Co. 200 U. S. 451, 471, 50 L. ed. 550, 560, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318; Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 623, 20 L. ed. 501, 503; Such v. Bank of State, 127 Fed. 450; White v. Boyce, 21 Fed. 228; Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown, 34 Fed. 162; Security Sav. & L. Asso. v. Buchanan, 14 C. C. A. 97, 31 U. S. App. 244, 66 Fed. 799; Curriden v. Middleton, 37 App. D. C. 568; Tyler v. Moses, 13 App. D. C. 442; Johnson v. Swanke, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1048 and note, 128 Wis. 68, 107 N. W. 481, 8 Ann. Cas. 544; Gaines v. Miller, 111 U. S. 395, 398, 28 L. ed. 466, 468, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426; Nash v. Ingalls, 41 C. C. A. 545, 101 Fed. 645; Sigua Iron Co. v. Clark, 77 Fed. 496; George v. Ford, 36 App. D. C. 330; Prescott v. Pfeiffer, 57 Mich. 21, 23 N. W. 477; Bay City Bridge Co. v. Van Etten, 36 Mich. 210; Albright v. Mercer, 14 Pa. Super. Ct. 63; McClane v. Shepherd, 21 N. J. Eq. 76; German American Seminary v. Kiefer, 43 Mich. 105, 4 N. W. 636; Roberts v. Ely, 113 N. Y. 128, 20 N. E. 606: Planters Bank v. Farmers & M. Bank, 8 Gill & J. 449; United States v. State Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 30, 24 L. ed. 647; Mills v. Knapp, 39 Fed. 595; Shields v. McCandlish, 73 Fed. 318; Angle v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 151 U. S. 1, 26, 38 L. ed. 55, 67, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; England v. Russell, 71 Fed. 818; Dewey Hotel Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co. 17 App. D. C. 365; Hayden v. Thompson, 17 C. C. A. 592, 36 U. S. App. 361, 71 Fed. 60; Pechstein v. Smith, 14 App. D. C. 30; Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. 221; Guarantee Co. of N. A. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & T. Co. 26 C. C. A. 146, 47 U S. App. 91, 80 Fed. 766; Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79, 94, 36 L. ed. 82, 89, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, 278, 15 L. ed. 633, 635; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. Co. 94 U. S. 806, 24 L. ed. 324; Curry v. McCauley, 11 Fed. 370; Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 416, 420,

The proceeding was multifarious. Bank of Metropolis v. Guttschlick, 14 Pet. 19, 29, 10 L. ed. 335, 340; Mutual F. Ins. Co. v. Barker, 17 App. D. C. 218; Anderson v. White, 2 App. D. C. 417; 27 Cyc. 968, 1148; Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 251, 26 L. ed. 729; Williams v. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478, 484, 27 L. ed. 529, 531, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 814; Holton v. Wallace, 66 Fed. 409; Security Sav. & L. Asso. v. Buchanan, 14 C. C. A. 97, 31 U. S. App. 244, 66 Fed. 799; Curry v. McCauley, 11 Fed. 365; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co. 135 U. S. 641, 651, 34 L. ed. 295, 300, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 965; Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 512, 36 L. ed. 1059, 1064, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, 456, 37 L. ed. 804, 807, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 883, 977; Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 267, Fed. Cas. No. 5,905; Bay City Bridge Co. v. Van Etten, 36 Mich. 210; Behlow v. Fischer, 102 Cal. 208, 36 Pac. 509; O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer, 106 Ala. 222, 28 L.R.A. 707, 54 Am. St. Rep. 31, 17 So. 525; Sheilds v. Barrow, 15 How. 130, 143, 15 L. ed. 158, 161; Warner v. Godfrey, 186 U. S. 365, 377, 46 L. ed. 1203, 1208, 22 | Sup. Ct. Rep. 852; Root v. Woolworth, 150 U. S. 401, 410, 37 L. ed. 1123, 1125, 1126, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; 16 Cyc. 357,| 361; 31 Cyc. 503; Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143, 148, 2 L. ed. 357, 359, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177; New York, P. & O. R. Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 58 Fed. 268; Wilder v. New Orleans, 31 C. C. A. 249, 58 U. S. App. 109, 87 Fed. 843; 34 Cyc. 236, 238; 34 Cyc. 190, 193, 388, 389; Youtsey v. Hoffman, 108 Fed. 693; State Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 34 N. J. Eq. 450; Wood v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 61 Fed. 236; Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 6 Wall. 742, 18 L. ed. 856; Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Bradley (Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Washington) 10 Wall. 299, 301, 19 L. ed. 894, 895.

The receiver had an adequate remedy at law, and sought no equitable relief. Townsend v. Vanderwerker, 160 U. S.

14 L. ed. 753, 755; Mattingly v. North- | L. ed. 393, 395, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337; western Virginia R. Co. 158 U. S. 53, Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819, 828, 12 57, 39 L. ed. 894, 895, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. L. ed. 928, 932; Wagner v. Baird, 7 725; Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 81, How. 234, 258, 12 L. ed. 681, 691; Burke 83, 35 L. ed. 654, 655, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. v. Smith (Putman v. New Albany & S. 912; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. C. Junction R. Co.) 16 Wall. 390, 401, 586, 32 L. ed. 543, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173; 21 L. ed. 361, 365; Meath v. Phillips Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 119 County, 108 U. S. 553, 27 L. ed. 819, 2 U. S. 237, 30 L. ed. 380, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Wood v. Carpenter, 193; Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 101 U. S. 135, 138, 25 L. ed. 807, 808; 200 U. S. 341, 349, 50 L. ed. 507, 510, 26 Teall v. Schroder, 158 U. S. 172, 178, Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; Koenigsberger v. 39 L. ed. 938, 940, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Richmond Silver Min. Co. 158 U. S. 41, Baker v. Cummings, 169 U. S. 189, 206, 46, 39 L. ed. 889, 890, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209, 42 L. ed. 711, 718, 719, 18 Sup. Ct. 751; McGowan v. Elroy, 28 App. D. C. Rep. 367; Lewis v. Denison, 2 App. D. C. 387; P. H. Sheehy Co. v. Eastern Importing & Mfg. Co. 44 App. D. C. 111, L.R.A.1916F, 810.

196.

If the trial court intended to hold the jurisdiction concurrent, limitations should have been applied.

If the trial court intended to hold the jurisdiction purely equitable, laches should have been applied.

Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177, 223, 9 L. ed. 388, 404; Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190, 207, 16 L. ed. 484, 488; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377, 386, 164, 6 L. ed. 289, 294; Bowman v. 30 L. ed. 718, 719, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 610; Wathen, 1 How. 189, 193, 11 L. ed. 97, Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 386, 390, 99; McKnight v. Taylor, 1 How. 161, 392, 34 L. ed. 424, 426, 427, 10 Sup. Ct. 168, 11 L. ed. 86, 88; Creath v. Sims, Rep. 942; Boone County v. Burlington 5 How. 192, 204, 12 L. ed. 111, 117; & M. River R. Co. 139 U. S. 684, 692, Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 35 L. ed. 319, 322, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687; 587, 23 L. ed. 328, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 688; Alsop v. Riker, 155 U. S. 448, 460, 39 Brown v. Buena Vista County, 95 U. S. L. ed. 218, 222, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162; 157, 161, 24 L. ed. 422, 423; Hayward v. Percy v. Cockrill, 4 C. C. A. 73, 10 U. S. Eliot Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 611, 618, 24 App. 574, 53 Fed. 872; Scheftel v. Hays, L. ed. 855, 858; Hammond v. Hopkins, 7 C. C. A. 308, 19 U. S. App. 220, 58 Fed. 143 U. S. 224, 250, 36 L. ed. 134, 145, 457; Merrill v. Monticello, 66 Fed. 165; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Fowler v. Fowler, Miles v. Vivian, 25 C. C. A. 208, 51 U. 38 App. D. C. 476; Upton v. Tribilcock, S. App. 194, 79 Fed. 848; Nash v. In- 91 U. S. 45, 54, 23 L. ed. 203, 207; Godgalls, 41 C. C. A. 545, 101 Fed. 645; den v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201, 210, 25 Hall v. Russell, 3 Sawy. 506, Fed. Cas. L. ed. 431; Jones v. Perkins, 76 Fed. No. 5,943; Hecht v. Slaney, 72 Cal. 363, 82; Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 258, 14 Pac. 88; McGaughey v. Brown, 46| Ark. 25; Pipe v. Smith, 5 Colo. 146; Wilmerding v. Russ, 33 Conn. 77; Maxwell v. Walsh, 117 Ga. 467, 43 S. E. 704; McClane v. Shepherd, 21 N. J. Eq. 76; Farnam v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 243; German American Seminary v. Kiefer, 43 Mich. 105, 4 N. W. 636; Weaver v. Leiman, 52 Md. 708; Marcotte v. Hartman, 46 Minn. 202, 48 N. W. 767; Yeoman v. Townsend, 74 Hun, 625, 26 N. Y. Supp. 606; Roberts v. Ely, 113 N. Y. 128, 20 N. E. 606; Lammer v. Stoddard, 103 N. Y. 672, 9 N. E. 328; Talmage v. Russell, 74 App. Div. 7, 76 N. Y. Supp. 854; Davis v. Hawkins, 163 Pa. 228, 29 Atl. 746; Ashhurst's Appeal, 60 Pa. 316; Watt's Appeal, 78 Pa. 370, 8 Mor. Min. Rep. 222; Newman v. Newman, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 370, and note, 60 W. Va. 371, 55 S. E. 377; Merton v. O'Brien, 117 Wis. 437, 94 N. W. 340; Carrol v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, 23 L. ed. 739; Ware v. Galveston City Co. 111 U. S. 170, 175, 28

12 L. ed. 681, 691; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. Co. 94 U. S. 806, 24 L. ed. 324; Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 437, 35 L. ed. 1063, 1072, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 239; Abraham v. Ordway, 158 U. S. 416, 422, 39 L. ed. 1036, 1039, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 894; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. 498; Willard v. Wood, 164 U. S. 502, 525, 41 L. ed. 531, 540, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; McQuiddy v. Ware, 20 Wall. 14, 22 L. ed. 311; Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 178, 185, 22 L. ed. 482, 485; Broderick's Will (Kieley v. McGlynn) 21 Wall. 503, 518, 22 L. ed. 599, 605; Halstead v. Grinnan, 152 U. S. 412, 417, 38 L. ed. 495, 497, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 641; Hoyt v. Latham, 143 U. S. 553, 565, 569, 36 L. ed. 259, 264, 265, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 568; Pearsall v. Smith, 149 U. S. 231, 234, 37 L. ed. 713, 716, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Credit Co. v. Arkansas C. R. Co. 5 McCrary, 5, 15 Fed. 46; Teall v. Slaven, 40 Fed. 774; Naddo v. Bardon, 47 Fed. 782; Jesup v. Illinois

S. 96, 102, 29 L. ed. 350, 352, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1137; Ware v. Galveston City Co.. 146 U. S. 102, 115, 36 L. ed. 904, 909, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33; Hardt v. Heidweyer, 152 U. S. 547, 558, 38 L. ed. 548, 552, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. 498; Jones v. Perkins, 76 Fed. 82; Thompson v. German Ins. Co. 77 Fed. 258; Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co. 30 C. C. A. 520, 57 U. S. App. 730, 87 Fed. 51; Fowler v. Fowler, 38 App. D. C. 476; Quirk v. Liebert, 12 App. D. C. 394; Lant v. Manley, 71 Fed. 7; Wetzel v. Minnesota R. Transfer Co. 12 C. C. A. 490, 27 U. S. App. 594, 65 Fed. 23.

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the court:

C. R. Co. 43 Fed. 483; Dugan v. O'Don-, L. ed. 836, 838; Harwood v. Cincinnati nell, 68 Fed. 983; United States Trust & C. Air Line R. Co. 17 Wall. 78, 21 Co. v. David, 36 App. D. C. 549; Burke L. ed. 558; Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. v. Smith (Putman v. New Albany & S. C. Junction R. Co. 16 Wall. 390, 401, 21 L. ed. 361, 365; Johnston v. Standard Min. Co. 148 U. S. 360, 370, 37 L. ed. 480, 485, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 554; Taylor v. South & North Ala. R. Co. 13 Fed. 152, 4 Woods, 575; | Rugan v. Sabin, 3 C. C. A. 578, 10 U. S. App. 519, 53 Fed. 415; Lewis v. Denison, 2 App. D. C. 387; De Mares v. Gilpin, 15 Colo. 84, 24 Pac. 568; Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 42 N. J. Eq. 657, 9 Atl. 742; Harwood v. Cincinnati & C. Air Line R. Co. 17 Wall. 78, 21 L. ed. 558; Boone County v. Burlington & M. River R. Co. 139 Ū. S. 684, 693, 35 L. ed. 319, 322, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687; Foster v. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. 146 U. S. 88, 100, 36 L. ed. 899, 903, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 527, 535, 39 L. ed. 520, 523, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430; Teall v. Schroder, 158 U. S. 172, 178, 39 L. ed. 938, 940, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 768; Rhino v. Emery, 65 Fed. 826; Lant v. Manley, 71 Fed. 7; Levis v. Kengla, 8 App. D. C. 230; Barton v. Long, 45 N. J. Eq. 841, 14 Atl. 565, 566, 568, 19 Atl. 623; Johnson v. Atlantic, G. & W. I. Transit Co. 156 U. S. 618, 647, 39 L. ed. 556, 566, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 520; Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317, 329, 36 L. ed. 719, 725, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; Leavenworth County v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 18 Fed. 209; Norris v. Haggin, 28 Fed. 275; Percy v. Cockrill, 4 C. C. A. 73, 10 U. S. App. 574, 53 Fed. 872; Swift v. Smith, 25 C. C. A. 154, 49 U. S. App. 181, 79 Fed. 709; De Walt v. Doran, 21 D. C. 175; Naddo v. Bardon, 2 C. C. A. 335, 4 U. S. App. 642, 51 Fed. 493; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183, 188, 31 L. ed. 396, 399, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Larkin v. Sierra Buttes Gold Min. Co. 25 Fed. 337; Coon v. Seymour, 71 Wis. 346, 37 N. W. 243; Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 168 U. S. 685, 696, 42 L. ed. 626, 631, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 223; James v. James, 55 Ala. 533.

When fraud is alleged, and delay in the assertion of the rights infringed is apparent on the face of the bill, plaintiff must plead strictly, setting forth the impediments to earlier prosecution, in order to excuse delay and escape the enforcement by the court of the bar of laches, and the dismissal of the bill.

Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819, 828, 12 L. ed. 928, 932; Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190, 208, 16 L. ed. 484, 488; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87, 95, 17

Smith and Wilson were sued in the supreme court of the District of Columbia by the receiver of the First Co-operative Building Association of Georgetown, District of Columbia, for the amount of profits made by them and a former receiver of the Association in the purchase at a foreclosure sale and subsequent resale of land mortgaged to secure a note owned by the Association. The supreme court held them liable for the full amount of the profits, $743.68, with interest and costs. The court of appeals of the District reversed the decree and ordered that the bill be dismissed with costs. 48 App. D. C. 565. A writ of certiorari was granted by this court. 250 U. S. 655, 63 L. ed. 1192, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10. The question before [587] us is whether the respondents are liable upon the following facts, and, if so, in what amount:

In 1908 the supreme court of the District appointed William E. Ambrose, a member of its bar, receiver of the First Co-operative Building Association of Georgetown, District of Columbia. Among the assets of the Association so intrusted to the receiver was a note of Schwab for $2,700, secured by a mortgage deed of trust of land. The note being in default, Ambrose, as receiver, requested the trustee under the deed of trust to advertise the land for sale at public auction. auction sale was held, and a bid of $350 was made by Edwin L. Wilson, a member of the bar; but the trustee withdrew the property from sale because the bid was inadequate. Thereafter it was arranged between Wilson, Ambrose, and another lawyer, John Lewis Smith, who was counsel of the receiver, that the trustee should again advertise the property for sale;

The

that Wilson should, at the second sale,, 741. To this end it was his duty to enuse his own judgment whether to bid, deavor to have the land, when sold under and, if so, what amount; and that, if he should happen to become the purchaser, the three should be jointly liable for the purchase price and any expenses incident to the purchase, and should be jointly interested in the property purchased. The second sale was duly advertised. Smith and Ambrose were present, but gave no instructions or directions in regard to the sale, either to the trustee or to his auctioneer. Wilson also attended, and, in the exercise of his own judgment, and without previous conference with either Smith or Ambrose, bid $491, and became the purchaser of the property. There was no evidence of any improper influence at the sale to prevent competition, or to close competitive bidding, or to bring about the sale to Wilson in preference to anyone else. On the contrary, it affirmatively appears that the sale was fairly conducted; that there was competitive bidding; and that the property was finally knocked down to the highest bidder.

the trust deed, bring the largest possible price. J. H. Lane & Co. v. Maple Cotton Mill, 146 C. C. A. 415, 232 Fed. 421. When he agreed with Smith and Wilson to join in the purchase if Wilson should become the successful bidder, he placed himself in a position in which his personal interests were, or might be, antagonistic to those of his trust. Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503, 552, 11 L. ed. 1076, 1098. It became to his personal interest that the purchase should be made by Wilson for the lowest possible price. The course taken was one which a fiduciary could not legally pursue. Magruder v. Drury, 235 [589] U. S. 106, 119, 120, 59 L. ed. 151, 156, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77. Since he did pursue it and profits resulted, the law made him accountable to the trust estate for all the profits obtained by him and those who were associated with him in the matter, although the estate may not have been injured thereby. Magruder v. Drury, 235 U. S. Within a few days after the second sale 106, 59 L. ed. 151, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. Wilson and [588] Smith found, through 77. And others who knowingly join a the aid of real estate agents, a purchaser fiduciary in such an enterprise likewise named Kite, who was willing to pay become jointly and severally liable with $1,400 for the land. In order to convey him for such profits. Emery v. Parrott, a good title it was necessary to clear the 107 Mass. 95, 103; Zinc Carbonate Co. land of tax liens and an outstanding tax v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 125, 134, title. This required $550,-that is, $59 74 Am. St. Rep. 845, 79 N. W. 229; more than Wilson had bid. He volun- Lomita Land & Water Co. v. Robinson, tarily raised his bid by that amount. The 154 Cal. 36, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1106, 97 land was conveyed by the trustee to Wil- Pac. 10. Wilson and Smith are therefore son, and by Wilson to Kite, the deeds jointly and severally liable for all profits being recorded simultaneously when Kite resulting from the purchase; the former, paid the $1,400. Of this amount $652.32 although he had no other relation to the was used to discharge taxes, tax liens, estate; the latter, without regard to the and expenses of sale. The balance, $743.68, fact that he was also counsel for the rewas divided equally between Wilson, ceiver. Smith, and Ambrose individually. Wil- It is said that, at a sale made under a son had paid out, in making the purchase, mortgage deed of trust, the duty to obtain no money of his own or theirs. The the highest possible price rests not upon estate of which Ambrose was receiver got the note holder, but upon the trustee nothing, as the amount required to dis- under the deed of trust, and that the charge the tax liens exceeded the amount creditor may bid at the sale or refrain bid by Wilson. Much later the facts from so doing, as he may see fit. Richard were brought to the attention of the su- v. Holmes, 18 How. 143, 148, 15 L. ed. preme court of the District. Ambrose 304, 306; Smith v. Black, 115 U. S. 308, resigned as receiver; Jackson was ap- 315, 29 L. ed. 398, 401, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. pointed in his stead; and as receiver 50. This is true so far as it concerns brought this suit against Wilson and the duty of the note holder to the debtor Smith to recover the profits which had been made by them and Ambrose.

or other owner of the mortgaged propAmbrose had, as receiver, the affirm- erty. But the many cases cited to this ative duty to endeavor to realize the effect in Smith's and Wilson's behalf do largest possible amount from the Schwab not bear upon the question before us. note. Baker v. Schofield, 243 U. S. 114, Smith and Wilson are held liable for 61 L. ed. 626, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; knowingly confederating with one who, Robertson v. Chapman, 152 U. S. 673, as receiver of the estate of the note holder, 681, 38 L. ed. 592, 595, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. ¡ owed a duty to it, and who put himself

GEDDES v. ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO.

in a position where his personal interest,
conflicted with his duty.

We have considered the many other
arguments urged in defense, but find in
them nothing which should relieve Smith
and Wilson from this liability. The de-
eree of the Court of Appeals of the Dis-
trict of Columbia is reversed with costs,
and that of the Supreme Court of the
District is affirmed.
Reversed.

of statutory remedy.
1. The remedies provided by the Sher-
man Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890, for
enforcing the rights created by it, are ex-
clusive.

[For other cases, see Election of Remedies, IV
in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Equity - jurisdiction

ing when bill is filed.

condition exist

2. The lower Federal courts properly assumed jurisdiction of the case presented by a bill filed by minority stockholders te set aside a sale of corporate property on the ground that the purchase was made in pur suance of a purpose to violate the Sherman Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890, where such suit was begun before it had become the settled law that the remedies provided by

Note. As to effect of statutes forbidding corporate officers, directors, or stockholders to be interested, directly or indirectly, in dealings with the corporation-see note to Baumhoff Grueninger, L.R.A.1916A, 783.

adequate consideration of all the property 5. The rule that while a sale for an of a corporation which, its business having proved unprofitable, has suspended operathe stock, such sale must be for money only, tions without prospect of revival, may be authorized by the owners of a majority of is subject to the exception that when stock which has an established market value and change for the corporate property, it should a wide and general market is taken in exbe treated as the equivalent of money, so as to sustain a sale otherwise valid. [For other cases, see Corporations, VI. f, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Corporations