HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 201

sufficient here again to observe, that I consider the matter as hav-
ing been long since fully settled, and the power as one of as great
utility as any which belongs to the Co urt.

It has been mainly urged, that the Court will not appoint a
receiver against the legal title, but upon very special and strong
ground. This is admitted. But the matter in controversy bet ween
these parties is a legal title, or it is nothing. This is a bill for
dower, a mere legal demand; and the relief the plaintiff seeks is
to have her particular estate set apart out of the general estate of
the defendants, and to have the rents and profits thereof accounted
for. *To this it is objected, that a receiver cannot be ap-
pointed, because the claim of the plaintiff does not extend
to the whole, but only to one-third of the property in controversy.

The appointment of a receiver does not involve the determina-
tion of any right; or affect the title of either party in any manner
whatever: but still an application for such an appointment can
only be made by those who have an acknowledged interest; or
where there is strong reason ro believe, that the party asking for
a receiver will recover. 1 am of opinion, that the plaintiff has a
sufficient presumption of title, to rest this application upon. Stit-
well v. Williams. 6 Mod. 49; Clark v. Dew, 1 Rus. & Myl 103;
Daris v. Marlborough, 2 Swan. 146. But unless she has also shown,
that the rents and profits are in imminent danger, a receiver cannot
be appointed. A manifest abuse of a trust by an habitual and pros-
pective course of dealing, bringing the property into danger, has
been held to afford sufficient ground for the appointment of a re-
ceiver: but in no case has there been the least hesitation in mak-
ing such an appointment, where the party in the actual receipt of
the rents and profits was shown to be insolvent. Here the prop-
erty is in the hands and under the control of the defendant Samuel
Chase: and it is shown by the exhibits attached to the petition,
that he has, pending this suit, actually obtained the benefit of the
insolvent laws. He is, therefore, legally and in fact insolvent.
Hence, it clearly appears that the rents and profits of the prop-
erty in question are exposed to imminent danger, or indeed to in-
evitable loss.

A receiver is appointed for the benefit of the interested party
who makes the application, and for any others who may choose to
avail themselves of it, and who may have an interest in the prop-
erty proposed to be put into the hands of a receiver. The imme-
diate moving cause of the appointment is the preservation of the
subject of litigation, or the rents and profits of it, from waste,
loss or destruction; so that there may be some harvest, some fruits
to gather after the labors of the controversy are over. The ulte-
rior objects of the appointment are those contemplated by the
suit itself; they are the several kinds of relief, which may be asked
for and obtained by the complainant's bill. Where the plaintiff