THOMPSEN VS. DIFFENDERFER. 489

LAURENCE THOMP8EN ET AL.

vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1849.
AUGUSTUS DIFFENDERFER ET AL.

[RECEIVER—RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE.]

THE court interposes, by appointing a receiver against the legal title, with
reluctance, and fraud, or imminent danger, if the intermediate poEsestiott
should not be taken by the court, must be clearly proved.

Though the court will not, by the appointment of a receiver, deprive a prior
mortgagee, having the legal title, of his right of possession, it will not permit
him to object to such appointment, by any act Short of a personal aaaertioa
of his legal right, and taking possession himself.

The power of appointing a receiver, is a delicate one, and to be exercised
with prudence and circumspection, yet, upon a sufficent cause stated and
proved, the court wilt exercise the power, though, by so doing, the business
of the defendants as merchants would be broken up.

It was urged, that the defendants should be required to offer proof in support
of some of the statements of the answer, though responsive to the bill; be-
cause such proof was within their reach, whilst it was inaccessible to the
complainants. HELD—

That the rule, that the answer, when responsive to the averments of the bill,
shall be taken as true, unless discredited by two witnesses, or one witness
with pregnant circumstances, is not subject to the modification which the in-
troduction of such a principle would involve.

[The original and amended biUs ifl this case, were filed by
certain of the creditors of the firm of Diffenderfer and Brothers,
against the members of said firm, and Sampson Cariss and
Catharine S. Diffenderfor, stating that the defendant first named
had commenced business is the city of Baltimore about the
year 1846, and by falsely representing the extent of their
means, had obtained credit with the several complainants and
others, to a large amount; that about the month of October,
1849, they ceased to pay their debts, and afterwards called a
meeting of their creditors, but at the meeting, and at others
subsequently appointed by them, and in fact ever since, had re-
fused to exhibit to their creditors the state of their affairs, put-
ting them off on various pretences; that since their suspension
they had refused to pay their creditors in whole or in part, bat
had been engaged in selling off their goods for cash, and ap-