Opinion of the Court. and fully explained the transfer, assignment or warrant of attorney to the person acknowledging the same." It is insisted that the orders in the state court assume to transfer or assign Price's claim against the United States in violation of, or without regard to the requirements of the statute, in that no assignment of the claim has ever been freely made; that no warrant for the payment thereof had been issued when those orders were made; and that the indorsement or assignment that Price was ordered to make did not fall within any of the established exceptions under section 3477, such as assignments in bankruptcy and insolvency, and assignments by operation of law. Are these propositions supported by the decisions of this court in which it has been found necessary to construe that section? In United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407, 416, the question was as to the validity of a voluntary transfer of the legal title to a claim under the Abandoned and Captured Property Act of March 12, 1863, for the proceeds of certain cotton seized by the military forces of the United States. The suit was brought by the transferee in the Court of Claims which found in his favor. By this court it was adjudged that he could not maintain the action. While holding that the act of February 26, 1853, c. 81, 10 Stat. 170, from which section 3477 was taken, was of universal application and covered all claims against the United States in every tribunal in which they might be asserted, this court stated that "there are devolutions of title by force of law, without any act of parties, or involuntary assignments compelled by law," to which the statute did not apply. In Erwin v. United States, 97 U. S. 392, 397, which was also an action to recover the proceeds of certain cotton captured by the military forces of the United States, it appeared that the original claimant became a bankrupt, and assigned his property to an assignee in bankruptcy. One of the questions was whether the claim for these proceeds, even if it constituted a demand against the Government, was capable of assignment under the above statute. This court said: Opinion of the Court. "The act of Congress of February 26, 1853, to prevent frauds upon the Treasury of the United States, which was the subject of consideration in the Gillis case, applies only to cases of voluntary assignment of demands against the Government. It does not embrace cases where there has been a transfer of title by operation of law. The passing of claims to heirs, devisees or assignees in bankruptcy are not within the evil at which the statute aimed; nor does the construction given by this court deny to such parties a standing in the Court of Claims." In Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, 560, where the question was whether the above statute embraced voluntary assignments for the benefit of creditors, this court, referring to Erwin v. United States, said: "The language of the statute, 'all transfers and assignments of any claim upon the United States, or of any part thereof, or any interest therein,' is broad enough (if such were the purpose of Congress) to include transfers by operation of law, or by will. Yet we held it did not include a transfer by operation of law, or in bankruptcy, and we said it did not include one by will. The obvious reason of this is that there can be no purpose in such cases to harass the Government by multiplying the number of persons with whom it has to deal, nor any danger of enlisting improper influences in advocacy of the claim, and that the exigencies of the party who held it justified and required the transfer that was made. In what respect does the voluntary assignment for the benefit of his creditors, which is made by an insolvent debtor of all his effects, which must, if it be honest, include a claim against the Government, differ from the assignment which is made in bankruptcy? There can here be no intent to bring improper means to bear in establishing the claim, and it is not perceived how the Government can be embarrassed by such an assignment. The claim is not specifically mentioned, and is obviously included only for the just and proper purpose of appropriating the whole of his effects to the payment of all his debts. We cannot believe that such a meritorious act as this comes within the evil which Congress sought to suppress by the act of 1853." Opinion of the Court. The doctrine of these cases has not been modified by any subsequent decision. Nor, as the argument at the bar implied, is that doctrine inconsistent with the decision subsequently rendered in St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. United States, 112 U. S. 733. Nothing more was adjudged in that case than that a voluntary transfer by way of mortgage of a claim against the United States for the security of a debt, and finally completed and made absolute by a judicial sale, was within the purview of the prohibition contained in section 3477, and could not be made the basis of an action against the Government in the Court of Claims. Such a voluntary assignment to secure a specific debt was held to be within the mischiefs which that section was intended to remedy. To the same class belongs Ball v. Halsell, 161 U. S. 72, 79, which was the case of a voluntary transfer of part of a claim against the United States on account of the depredations of certain Indians on the property of the claimant. While the present case differs from any former case in its facts, we think that the principle announced in Erwin v. United States and Goodman v. Niblack justified the conclusion reached by the state court. That court held that it had jurisdiction under the laws of the State, and as between the parties before it, to put into the hands of its receiver any chose in action of whatever nature belonging to Price and of which he had possession or control. The receiver did not obtain from Price in his lifetime an assignment of his claim against the United States. But having full jurisdiction over him, the court adjudged that as between Price and the plaintiffs who sued him the claim should not be disposed of by him to the injury of his creditors, but should be placed in the hands of its receiver subject to such disposition as the court might determine as between the parties before it and as was consistent with law. The suit in which the receiver was appointed was of course primarily for the purpose of securing the payment of the judgment obtained by Samuel Forrest in his lifetime against Rodman M. Price. But that fact does not distinguish the case in principle from Goodman v. Niblack; for the transfer in question to the receiver was the act Opinion of the Court. of the law, and whatever remained, whether of property or money, in his hands after satisfying the judgment and the taxes, costs or expenses of the receivership as might be ordered by the court, would be held by him as trustee for those entitled thereto, and his duty would be to pay such balance into court to the credit of the cause "to be there disposed of according to law." Revision of N. J. Laws, 1877, sec. 26, p. 394. As this court has said, the object of Congress by section 3477 was to protect the Government, and not the claimant, and to prevent frauds upon the Treasury. Bailey v. United States, 109 U. S. 432; Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567; Freedman's Savings Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 506. There was no purpose to aid those who had claims for money against the United States in disregarding the just demands of their creditors. We perceive nothing in the words or object of the statute that prevents any court of competent jurisdiction as to subject-matter and parties from making such orders as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent one who has a claim for money against the Government from withdrawing the proceeds of such claim from the reach of his creditors; provided such orders do not interfere with the examination and allowance or rejection of such claim by the proper officers of the Government, nor in anywise obstruct any action that such officers may legally take under the statutes relating to the allowance or payment of claims against the United States. If a court, in an action against such claimant by one of his creditors, should, for the protection of the creditor, forbid the claimant from collecting his demand except through a receiver who should hold the proceeds subject to be disposed of according to law under the order of court, we are unable to say that such action would be inconsistent with section 3477. It may be that the officers charged with the duty of allowing or disallowing claims against the Government are not required to recognize a receiver of a claim appointed by a court, and may, if the claim be allowed, refuse to make payment except as provided in section 3477. Upon this subject, the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, in his opinion, rendered July Opinion of the Court. 11, 1894, construing the act of February 23, 1891, and in which he held that Price was entitled to receive in his lifetime, whatever sum was found to be due him on the adjustment of his accounts, but if he died before such adjustment was made his heirs would take, not by virtue of the act of Congress, but according to the laws of descent at the domicil of the deceased, said: "I do not presume for a moment that the Chancery Court of New Jersey could issue an execution and compel payment of this money, nor could any of its powers be brought to bear to compel, without at least additional legislation by Congress, the Comptroller to pay its judgment; but while that is true, yet on the other hand the Comptroller, so far having awaited the adjudication of that Chancery Court, ought to abide by the result of that litigation, and await a final adjudication and certification of the amount, as to who are entitled under the laws of that State. This comes more from comity, and from a disposition on the part of the Treasury officers to obey the laws of the land, and to help to enforce the decrees of the courts that have jurisdiction over matters in litigation of this kind, than from any actual authority that a court may have over the Comptroller to compel him to make payment. In conclusion, then, the Comptroller will not at this time act in this matter, but will say to the gentlemen, that they must fight it out in the courts of New Jersey, and that this court will follow the final decision that may be rendered there. Hence this matter will be suspended until such time as the Comptroller may be put into possession of the final decree, either of the New Jersey Chancery Court, or such court as may have appellate jurisdiction therefrom." Even if it be true that the final order of the state court in relation to the money in question would not impose any legal duty upon the officers of the Treasury, it does not follow that the order of court appointing the receiver would be null and void, as between those who are parties to the cause and who are before the court. It only remains to say touching this part of the case that if section 3477 does not embrace the passing or transfer of claims to heirs, devisees or assignees in bankruptcy, as held |