200 HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.— 1BLAND.

Chase, and in a deed bearing date on the day of the date hereof,
for the lease of the said two lots or parcels of ground by the said
Samuel Chase to the said James Bryden, for the term of fifteen
years from the date of the said lease, and free from all incum-
brances and right and title of dower whatsoever. Now the con-
dition of the said obligation is such, that if the said Samuel Chase,
his heirs or assigns, shall well and faithfully observe, perform and
keep the said agreement on his part, according to the true intent
and meaning thereof, then the said obligation shall be void, other-
wise in full force and virtue in law."

All the other material circumstances of the case are sufficiently
noticed by the Chancellor in delivering his opinion after the final
hearing.

On the first of March, 1826, the plaintiff filed her petition, in
which she stated, that the defendant, Samuel Chase, who had the
control and management of the property in which she claimed
* dower, had since the institution of this suit, taken the
212 benefit of the insolvent law; and that if he were permitted
to continue either directly or indirectly to receive the rents
and profits, they would be wholly lost. Upon which she prayed
that a receiver might be appointed. Upon this petition an order
was passed, allowing the defendants to show cause on the 22d of
the same month. After which the matter was brought up for a
final decision upon the circumstances as stated by the Court.

BLAND, C., 26th April, 1826.—The petition for the appointment
of a receiver standing ready for hearing, the parties were heard
by counsel, and the proceedings read and considered.

The defendants have not thought proper to put io a formal
answer in writing to the plaintiff's petition, but have been content
with showing cause verbally. If a petition of this kind, bringing
before the. Court a matter which could not have been made the
subject of a mere motion, because of the necessity of putting upon
the record the new facts therein set forth, and apprising the party
of all the circumstances on which the application is made, so as to
enable him to controvert them, if he can; be not regularly and
properly denied by a written answer on oath, the whole, or so
much of it as is not denied must, by analogy to the course of this
Court in similar cases, be taken to be true, Shipbrooke v. Hinch-
ingbrook; 13 Ves. 393; 2 Harr. Pra. Chan. 40, 129, 133.

I have so recently had occasion to consider the general nature
and utility of the power of this Court to appoint a receiver, Wil-
liammn v. Wilson, 24th April, 182C, post, that it will be unne-
cessary upon this application to notice what has been said in argu-
ment as to the novelty, or the unsettled nature of the authority of
this Court to make such an appointment, or as to the very oppres-
sive purposes to which, it is said, it may be applied. It will be