Cas.  1915D,  1036,  140  Pac.  86.)  But,  it  is  said,  by  the  receiver-
ship the  bank  lost  all  control  over  its  assets,  and  this  is  sufficient
to  defeat  the  preference.  It  is  certainly  true  that  during  re-
ceivership the  owner  loses  the  control  of  his  property,  and  in
receiverships  like  this  such  control  may  never  be  regained.  Yet
to  regain  control  is  always  theoretically  possible,  for  the  pur-
pose of  any  receivership  is  to  husband  the  property  thereby
sequestered  for  whoever  may  be  entitled  to  it.  Nor  is  it  decisive
that  the  receiver  may  sell,  under  order  of  court,  because  that
power  is  given  and  may  be  used  only  in  further ance  of  the  pur-
pose to  husband ;  so,  too,  an  executor  or  administrator  may  sell,
yet  it  cannot  be  contended  that  he  has  title  or  such  control  over


\


54  Mont]    Aetna  Accident  &  Liability  Co.  v.  Miller.      389

the  real  estate  of  his  decedent  as  would  defeat  a  lawful  prefer-
ence. A  receivership  and  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  cred-
itors are  two  different  things  (Bdbcock  v.  Maxwell,  21  Mont.
507,  513,  54  Pac.  943),  but  this  court  has  said  that  the  position
of  a  receiver  is  no  better  and  no  higher  than  that  of  an  assignee ;
he  occupies  a  situation  not  materially  different  from  that  of  the
insolvent  prior  to  the  appointment;  he  is  the  arm  of  the  court
to  accomplish,  when  necessary,  the  distribution  of  the  assets
of  the  insolvent  according  to  the  rights  of  those  entitled  thereto.
