In Boese, Receiver v. King & Others, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation. The case involved a dispute between the receiver of a corporation and the shareholders of the corporation. The receiver had been appointed by a court of equity to take possession of the corporation's assets and to manage them for the benefit of the creditors. The shareholders of the corporation argued that the receiver did not have the authority to bring a suit in the name of the corporation. The Supreme Court held that the receiver did have the authority to bring a suit in the name of the corporation. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed to manage the corporation's assets and to protect the interests of the creditors. As such, the Court held that the receiver had the authority to bring a suit in the name of the corporation in order to protect the interests of the creditors. The Court also held that the shareholders of the corporation did not have the right to interfere with the receiver's actions. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the receiver appointed by a court of equity had the authority to bring a suit in the name of the corporation. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed to manage the corporation's assets and to protect the interests of the creditors, and that the shareholders of the corporation did not have the right to interfere with the receiver's actions.

In Boese v. King, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a court in one state could sue on behalf of creditors in another state. The majority opinion held that the receiver had no such authority and dismissed the case. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust for creditors to have their rights denied simply because they resided outside of where the receivership was established. He argued that if Congress had intended to limit receivers' powers in this way, it would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Furthermore, he noted that allowing out-of-state creditors access to legal remedies provided by receiverships is consistent with public policy and should not be restricted without clear legislative guidance or precedent from prior cases.