232 WILLIAMS' CASE.—3 BLAND.

Where, on a decree for a sale of a mortgaged estate to satisfy
* the mortgage debt, on the trustee's reporting, that he
217 had been unable to effect a sale; that the estate was unpro-
ductive; and that the buildings and fences on it were going to
ruin by reason of the estate's being left unoccupied, and unpro-
tected, he was ordered to rent the estate, from year to year, in the
best manner he could: and, from the rents, to have the buildings
and fences kept in repair, until a sale could be effected. Mackubin
v. Hogarth, 25th October, 1826, per BLAND, Chancellor. And,
where, after a sale, the proceeds have been collected by the trus-
tee, or have been brought into Court; and are likely, from the
nature of the controversy, to remain for some time unproductive,
they may be ordered to be invested in some safe stock, or other-
wise, so as to be made profitable, pending the litigation, for the
benefit of the parties interested. Barker v. Harper, Coop. Rep.
32; Smith v. Jackson, 1 Mad. Rep. 618; Spring v. South Carolina
Insu. Comp. 6 Wheat. 519; Latimer v. Hanson. 1 Bland, 51.

In this case it would obviously be more advantageous to all con-
cerned, that the estate should be so disposed of as to prevent the
buildings and fixtures from being injured, or going to ruin; and,
that the estate should be made to yield some profit for the main-
tenance and benefit of these parties.

It is therefore ordered, that the trustee be and he is hereby
authorized to lease or rent the property in the proceedings men-
part of the purchase money, and that he, and his sureties, were then insol-
vent. Whereupon it was prayed, that the land might be re-sold for the pay-
ment of the balance of the purchase money. The defendant, by his answer,
said, that he had paid $720; and admitted the truth of the other facts set
forth in the bill. Upon which it was, on the 8th of December, 1823, Decreed,
that the land be sold, &c.

"After which the trustee by his petition, filed on the 30th of March, 1824,
stated, that he had advertised the land for sale as directed by the decree, but
could not sell it for want of buyers; and, that there was no prospect of his
being able to sell it time enough for the purchaser to make a crop in the then
present year: in the meantime the defendant was in possession, and interest
was accruing on the claim upon it, and no benefit derived from the land,
which was wholly insufficient to pay the amount of the claim. The trustee
required to be directed whether he should rent the land for the valuation,
that is, $123, &c.

JOHNSON, C., 30th March, 1824.—The trustee is authorized to rent the land,
taking such security for the rent as he may judge sufficient. If an offer to
purchase at private sale, during the time for which it is rented, should be
made, the trustee will communicate the same, if he judges it advantageous.

Under this authority the trustee permitted the defendant to continue in
possession at the specified rent; and afterwards sold the land, which sale
was finally ratified. After which the trustee reported, that he had received
three years rent; upon which he was allowed seven per cent, for his trouble.