of construction next winter, as we understand, in the Supreme Court of the United States, and, in the second place, it has been impossible to assemble our Committee for any full deliberation in regard to the report. (See the Report in the Appendix.) The President: The Chair desires to thank the Chairman of the Committee not only for his very admirable report, but for his preparation of it in time to permit its being printed and circulated in the hope that it would be made the subject of private study and consideration and then be brought up for discussion here. The Chair has been exceedingly anxious during the year that these reports should be carefully prepared in advance of the meeting, so that members of the Association would come here prepared to express deliberate opinions upon the subject of the reports. The next committee is the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure. I am very sorry to say that several members and particularly the chairman of the committee are not here, and I will ask Mr. McCrary, of Iowa, a member of the committee, to make the report. A. J. McCrary, of Iowa: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Association. In the absence of the chairman of the committee, I beg leave to present the following report: (See the Report in the Appendix.) In connection with this report, Mr. President, as you all have observed the peculiar omission in the enactment of the law of the phrase which grants appeals from an interlocutory order, I would like to state that the suggestion has twice gone from this Association to Congress on that subject, but no action has been taken. Therefore, in connection with this report, if it is permissible, I would move the appointment of a committee of three to present this matter to Congress, in order to see that the amendment is made which seems so fitting and proper. II. C. Tompkins, of Alabama: I certainly hope the Association will take that action. I introduced that resolution in the Association in 1894. The Association had endorsed the proposition contained in that resolution, in the first place, by drafting a bill for the creation of Courts of Appeals, which provided that an appeal should lie from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver. Two committees of this Association had subsequently reported in favor of amending the law in that respect, and yet three years have passed and nothing has been done in relation to it. Now, it is a strange anomaly in the law that if I obtain an injunction restraining my neighbor from disposing of his property an appeal will lie from that order to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but if I obtain an order taking his property out of his possession and putting it in the hands of a receiver, he has to submit until the final determination of the cause. Restrain him from disposing of his property, allow an appeal, but take the property out of his possession and deny him an appeal! Now, sir, it works in this way. Take personal property. Here is an order obtained in a proceeding instituted by a bill in equity appointing a receiver of personal property. The case goes on to final adjudication, and it is determined that the complainant had no equity and no right to the order appointing the receiver, but, in all probability that property has been sold under an order of the court,-sold at public auction perhaps and sacrificed. What is the remedy of the owner of that property? He has none whatever except to take that which is given to him, the bare pittance that the property was sold for at public auction. Now, that ought not to be the case. It is much more important that we should have an appeal from orders appointing receivers than it is that we should have an appeal from an order granting an injunction, because in cases where injunctions are granted the judges always protect the defendant by requiring a bond. The law in our State for twenty odd years has been that an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court from orders appointing receivers or from orders refusing to appoint receivers, and it has always given entire satisfaction. No one objects to it, and you could not get a lawyer in the State to-day that would advocate a repeal of that provision. I say it is time for this Association to act, and I hope that a committee will be appointed to go to Washington and urge upon Congress the adoption of this measure. Merrill Moores, of Indiana: I wish to suggest that there is another omission in the act which ought to be corrected at the same time. An examination of the act will show to anyone who is not familiar with it that there is an appeal from an interlocutory order granting an injunction to the Circuit Court of Appeals in cases in which the final appeal is to that court, but that in cases where the final appeal is direct to the Supreme Court of the United States there is no appeal from an interlocutory order. I can only think that this must have been an omission which was not intended at the time and that it became the law by an oversight, and I should like to suggest that it be left to this committee which is to be appointed, to decide whether it be not wise in recommending the amendment which this motion provides for, to recommend at the same time that the act be amended as to this provision. If there should be an appeal from an interlocutory order to the Circuit Court of Appeals in cases which must be finally appealed to that court, there is precisely the same reason why there should be an appeal from an interlocutory order in cases which must finally go to the Supreme Court of the United States. The reason in one case is the reason in the other, and it can only have been by an unintentional omission that the act is as it now is. I do not make this as a motion, as the committee may not desire to be saddled with this matter, but I suggest, if it meets the approval of this body, that the committee be authorized to add this matter to the other. G. A. Finkelnburg, of Missouri: I desire to ask whether the proposed change is connected with a supersedeas, so that if an appeal is taken, the order appointing the receiver is stayed or nullified. It would make some difference in my vote. The President: I would ask Mr. Tompkins if he has put his motion in writing? H. C. Tompkins: I simply advocate the adoption of the report of the Committee and the motion made by Mr. McCrary, that is all. The manner of taking the appeal is a matter to be determined by Congress. In Alabama the law provides that it shall not supersede the order unless the defendant executes a bond in a sum to be fixed by the court and conditioned to turn the property over to the receiver in case the order is affirmed. That, of course, is a matter for Congress. The general law now is that appeals do not supersede the orders of court unless a bond is given. The President: These suggestions that have been made are certainly of matters which ought to be remedied in the administration of the law, and I suggest to the two gentlemen who have made these suggestions that perhaps it would reach more satisfactory results if, when this report shall come before the house for discussion, the subject be formulated more accurately and carefully and then presented for the action of the Committee. H. C. Tompkins: As I understand it, Mr. President, the report is before the Association. The Committee's report is the recommendation that the resolution which I offered in 1894 and which is embodied in the report, be adopted. That simply makes the Association approve the proposition, and urge upon Congress the amendment of the law so as to provide for appeals in such cases. A. J. McCrary, of Iowa: The motion to have a committee appointed to attend to the presentation of this matter to Congress was a personal motion of my own, and not made after consulting with the other members of the committee. After reading the report, I offered that motion as a means of remedying the trouble about which we have, for two or three years, been resolving, and Congress has paid no attention to us. If we appoint a committee to present the matter to Congress, we will be doing something. Charles M. Wilson, of Michigan: It seems to me, Mr. President, that the suggestion which the gentleman from Indiana has made should be considered before any action is taken by the Association. I would therefore move that the matter which he has suggested, together with the matter embodied in the report, be referred back to the committee with instructions to report to-morrow, or before we adjourn finally. James II. Raymond, of Illinois: The question suggested by my friend as to cases which go to the Supreme Court, undoubtedly will meet with discussion, and has not yet been considered by the committee; and, besides, it is contrary to our custom to consider such a matter and finally act upon it in open convention. The report contains no recommendation. The report, however, as a matter of form, should be adopted, in order that we may be consistent with our former action. Mr. McCrary makes a motion that a special committee of three be appointed, and that motion hast not yet been seconded. I beg to second that motion, so that the matter may be put into the hands of a special committee of this Association. Then after that motion shall be disposed of, if no one else does so, I shall move to adopt the report. Charles Claflin Allen, of Missouri : A verbal motion was made, as I understand it, by Mr. McCrary, and, at the request of the Secretary, I understand he has put his motion in the form of a written resolution which |