394 WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND.

The recommendations of those most interested have generally been most re-
garded in the appointment.

ing the interference, were that the mortgagor, the judgment debtor, was in
possession of the property, selling the same for his own use, that he was
insolvent and that complainant was thereby in danger of losing his debt.
These charges were explicitly denied by the answer, but the Court below,
upon bill and answer, without proof on either aide, refused to dissolve the
injunction and discharge the receiver. Held, that under these circum-
stances, the injunction should have been dissolved and the receiver dis-
charged. Furlong v. Edwards, 3 Md. 99. In this case the mortgagee, the
legal owner, was in possession of the property, (having constituted the
mortgagor his agent to sell,) and no fraud or improper conduct was imputed
to him. and there was therefore no ground to deprive him of possession by
the appointment of a receiver. Ibid.

A bill simply alleging that the defendant is indebted to the complainants
in a specified sum. and that he is disposing of his property and collecting
the debts due him. and secreting the same, with intent to defraud his credi-
tors, and that he intends, as soon as he completes such sales and collections
to abscond for the purpose of hindering, &c. his creditors, does not warrant
the appointment of a receiver, or an injunction. Uhl v. Dillon, 10 Md. 500,
affirmed in Hubbard v. Hubbard. 14 Md. 356. Cf. Rich v. Levy. 16 Md. 74.
[Such a case would be within Rev. Code, Art. 67, sec. 34. providing for at-
tachments on original process.]

When the executors refused to take any steps to collect a debt due the
estate by certain legatees, and such legatees were without means to pay the
debt unless it should be charged upon their interests as legatees, it was held
on a bill against the executors, 1. That the complainants, who were legatees,
interested in the proper administration of the estate, had a right to the aid
of equity in enforcing the collection of the debt. 2. That the appointment
of a receiver, with power to collect the sum ordered to be paid was a proper
means of enforcing the Court's decree. Bennett v. Rhodes, 58 Md. 78. Where
the relation of landlord and tenant exists, the former has his remedy at law
and cannot maintain a bill against the tenant merely because he is a bad
manager and insolvent. Blain v. Evei itt, 36 Md. 82. Where a bill set forth
the complainant's title, and stated that a party had wrongfully taken pos-
session of the property, but did not state that such party was insolvent or
unable to account for the same, or that the rents and profits were in danger
of being lost, the Court refused to appoint a receiver. Clark v. Ridgely, 1
Md. Ch. 70. Cf. State v. Railway, 18 Md. 194.

The insolvency of the party receiving the rents acd profits exposes them
to danger of loss and constitutes a sufficient ground for the appointment of
a receiver. Chase's Case, 1 Bland, 206. In a bill for the assignment of dower
in which there was no allegation, that the rents and profits of the realty
would be lost by reason of the insolvency of those receiving them, or that
plaintiff had not an adequate remedy at law, or how such rents were jeop-
ardized, it was held that the bill did not make a sufficient case for the ap-
pointment of a receiver. Knighton v. Young. 32 Md. 360. Claim of the
whole title is unnecessary to authorize a party to make the application.
Chase's Case; Cole v. O'Neill. 3 Md. Ch. 174.

A receiver ought not to he appointed without previous notice of the ap-
plication to the defendant, unless the necessity be of the most stringent
* character. Nusbaum v. Stein, 12 Md. 315. In Brick Co. v. Robinson, 55 Md.
418, and Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365. it was held that the circumstances
were not such as to justify the appointment of receivers before answer. A