KIPP v. HANNA.—2 BLAND. 27

consent of whose solicitor it was taken, and the case is not in a
situation to have the bill taken pro confesso, against *any
one but the defendant Burhing. Nor does it appear that 31
the exceptions to the answer of the defendant, Alexander B.
Hanna, have been in any way disposed of.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, filed on the 16th of June, 1825,
stated, that the chattel real in controversy had been and then was
held by the defendants Alexander B. Hanna and wife; that he was
insolvent; and that, anticipating the termination of this suit
against them, they had suffered the ground rent to fall greatly in
arrear; whereupon, it was prayed, that the property might be put
into the hands of a receiver.

A day having been given for the healing of the matter of this
petition, it was answered by the defendants Alexander B. Hanna
and wife; and the solicitors of the parties were heard.

BLAND, C., 4th October, 1825.—A receiver may be appointed
against the legal title in a strong case of fraud, combined with
danger to the property. In such cases, the Court may, on affi-
davits, interfere before the hearing. But the Court interposes by
appointing a receiver against the legal title with reluctance. It
must not only be morally sure, that, at the hearing, the party
would, upon those circumstances, be turned out of possession; but
must see some imminent danger to the property and the inter-
mediate rents and profits, from not acting rather prematurely, and
if the property should not be taken under the care of the Court.
It is conceived, that according to these principles, this is not such
a case as the Chancellor would be warranted in appointing a re-
ceiver. Therefore, it is ordered, that the petition be dismissed
with costs. Poic. Mart. by Covin, 295, n; Williamson v. Wilson, 1
Bland, 422; Hannah K. Chase's Case, 1 Bland, 213.

After which, the exceptions to the answer of the defendant
Alexander B. Hanna, having been sustained, he put in a full
answer, as required, on the 22d of March, 1826. Subsequently to
which, the plaintiffs, by their petition, prayed for a commission to
take evidence, &c.

BLAND, C., 15th April, 1826.—The order of publication having
been published as required, warning F. G. L. Burhing to appear,
and the general replication to the answers of all the other de-
fendants having been put in by the plaintiffs; it is * there
fore ordered, that a commission issue as prayed, unless the 32
defendants name and strike commissioners on or before the 30th
instant.