398 WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND.

creditor of the firm, insisted by his petition on the receiver being
continued.

BLAND, C., 24th April, 1826.—This case standing ready for
hearing on the motion to rescind the order appointing a receiver,
the counsel on both both sides were heard, and the proceedings
read and considered.

There have been, of late, many applications to this Court for
the appointment of a receiver. The power of making such an
appointment, by some, has been contemplated as, at least, a new
exhibition ol the jurisdiction of this Court. It seems to have
been considered in the argument as one of an unsettled and ques-
tionable nature. That it is a power which has not, until of late,
been very frequently resorted to may be admitted; but, there can
be no doubt of its being an authority properly belonging to this
Court. In an order, passed about twenty years ago, the then
Chancellor speaks of the power, as one which rightfully belonged
to the Court, and respecting which there was then no question
whatever. The Wharf Case, 3 BL 361. It is a power of the
Court of Chancery of England, which appears to have been very
frequently called into action during more than a century past.
All the leading principles in relation to it were well established
there, long before our Revolution; and it was then, and has ever since
been considered, there and here, as a power of as great utility as
any which belongs to a Court of Chancery. And. that it is so,
will appear very evident, from a review of the nature, and the
variety of the exigencies in which it has been called into action;
either to prevent fraud, to save the subject of litigation from ma-
terial injury, or to rescue it from inevitable destruction.

Much the greater number of the English reported cases, con-
cerning receivers, relate to real estates, and most frequently are
such as have arisen between mortgagors and mortgagees. In
almost all of them the office and duty of the receiver have been
* extended no further than to exclude trespasses, to make
421 such repairs as are indispensably necessary, and to collect
and account for the rents and profits. But where the preserva-
tion of personal property has been the object, the receiver has
been in many respects, invested with the authority of a curator
bonis of the Roman law. He has been directed to take into his
possession all the movables; and if any were of a perishable na-
ture, to sell them. He has been directed to collect and sometimes
to pay debts. Where there has been a breach of duty by a part-
ner, a receiver has been appointed and charged with the winding
up of an unsettled commercial concern. Peacock v. Peacock, 16
Fes. 49; Hording v. Glorer, 18 Ves. 281. And in all cases he has
been held bound to render a strict account of his stewardship.
A receiver is an officer of the Court. He is considered as truly