In Farlow, Receiver v. Kelly, the United States Supreme Court 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 a former officer of the corporation. The receiver sought to recover money that the former officer had received from the corporation. The Supreme Court held that a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to bring a suit in the name of the corporation. The Court reasoned that the receiver was the legal representative of the corporation and was authorized to bring suit on its behalf. The Court also noted that the receiver was appointed to protect the interests of the corporation and its creditors, and that the suit was necessary to protect those interests. The Court concluded that the receiver had the power to bring the suit in the name of the corporation and that the former officer was liable for the money he had received from the corporation. The Court also held that the receiver was entitled to recover the money from the former officer.

In Farlow, Receiver v. Kelly, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity could bring suit in federal court to recover money due on an obligation created under state law. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed because they would interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts over matters arising from contracts made within their own states. However, Justice Field dissented and argued that receivers should be able to sue in federal court when necessary for the protection of property rights vested in them by order of a federal court. He reasoned that allowing receivers to bring suit would protect creditors’ interests without encroaching upon any authority reserved exclusively for state courts; rather it would simply provide another avenue through which those interests might be vindicated if necessary. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had already authorized similar suits brought by trustees and guardians appointed under its laws so there was no reason why receivers should not also have this right as long as it did not conflict with existing statutes or judicial decisions concerning equitable powers granted to state courts