Court-appointed receiver protection: prior leave is not essential, and later leave can cure the defect in proceedings.

A receiver appointed by a court is an officer of the court, and property in the receiver's hands remains in custodia legis; proceedings against the receiver or such property without the appointing court's leave interfere with the court's possession and may be invalidated as an affront to its authority. The rule is grounded in the court's inherent power to protect its control, not in any statutory bar or lack of jurisdiction in the trial court. Prior leave is not a condition precedent, and leave granted during the pendency of the suit cures the defect before the proceeding ends. Leave should ordinarily be granted unless the proposed action is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise improper.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave of the court appointing a receiver is a condition precedent to the institution or continuation of a suit against the receiver, and whether leave granted after institution but before termination of the suit cures the defect.

Analysis: A receiver appointed by the court is an officer of the court and the property remains in custodia legis. Proceedings against such property or against the receiver without the appointing court's leave amount to an interference with the court's possession and are treated as capable of invalidation for contempt of the court's authority. The rule is not founded on a statutory bar to the cause of action or on lack of jurisdiction in the trying court, but on the court's inherent power to protect its possession and prevent abuse of its authority. Since the object of the rule is to safeguard the court's control, the defect is capable of being cured if leave is obtained before the suit or proceeding comes to an end. Leave is ordinarily to be granted unless the proposed proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise improper.

Conclusion: Prior leave is not a condition precedent; leave granted during the pendency of the suit cures the defect, and the appellant was entitled to prosecute the suit against the receiver.

---