404 WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND.

performed by the Chancellor himself. And, in this case, the selec-
tion of a suitable person, as well as every other matter in relation
to the application for the appointment of a receiver, is now as
entirely open for consideration as if nothing had been previously
done. The appointment that has been made may be rescinded;
the continuance of a receiver may be altogether refused; or the
appointment may be now made more suitable to the circumstances
of the case.

The recommendations of those most interested, and who are
most likely to sustain injury without an appointment of a receiver,
have generally been most regarded. The being a near relation of
either party is not in itself an absolute disqualification, but it
must be allowed to have its weight when connected with other
circumstances.

In this case I am of opinion, that the present receiver, David
Williamson, Jun'r, ought to be removed. Jealousies have been
excited against him. He is the brother of one of the parties, and
the son of one who claims to be a large creditor of the firm. He
is admitted by the plaintiff to have taken an active part in this
controversy as his agent and friend. And he is charged by the
defendants with having been active by undue means to their great
prejudice. His feelings and affections appear to have become too
much enlisted to permit him to be as unbiased and impartial as a
receiver ought to be in winding up the partnership affairs of these
insolvent debtors.

Jacob Schley has been recommended by some of the creditors,
or those who allege, that they are creditors of the firm; and the
counsel of the.se litigating parties admit him to be in all respects
capable and fit; I shall therefore appoint him. This receiver will,
as usual, be at present invested with no other authority than to
receive and take care of the effects of these insolvents; but any
* further authority and directions that maybe necessary,
428 be given when applied for, and as circumstances may
suggest and require. The compensation of the receiver removed,
and of the one now appointed, will be determined on a representa-
tion of their trouble, skill, and merits, as to which the parties will
be heard.

From what has been said the reasons for continuing the injunc-
tion must be sufficiently evident. It is, in this case, a suitable
auxiliary to the appointment of a receiver; and therefore will be
allowed to operate until the hearing or further order. Eden Inj.
220.

With regard to the exceptions, that have been taken to the de-
fendants' answer, it may be sufficient to remark, that from the
manner in which they were treated in the argument, it did not
appear, that the plaintiff wished them to be now decided upon;