THOMPSON VS. DIFFENDERFER. 493

port the allegation of their bill, and the case having been heard.
on the application for a receiver, and the motion to dissolve
the injunction, the Chancellor delivered the following opinion:]

THE CHANCELLOR:

This case is brought before the court upon the motion to dis-
solve the injunction, in connection with which the application
for the appointment of a receiver has been argued; and it is
quite manifest, and has not been controverted, that if the injunc-
tion should be continued, it would be proper and necessary to
put a receiver upon the property—and if, on the contrary,'it
should bethought proper, under the circumstances, to refuse the
application for a receiver, the injunction should be dissolved,
as in that event its continuance would only embarrass and in-
jure the defendants in the prosecution of their business without
benefit to any one.

The question to be considered, therefore, is, whether under
the circumstances of this case, a receiver should or should not
be appointed ?

In the case of Williamson vs. Wilson, 1 Bland, 418, the late
Chancellor laid down with precision, and, as I think, in entire
conformity with the authorities, the principles which should
govern the court upon applications similar to the present. It
was there said, that "the court reluctantly interfered against the
legal title only in the case of fraud clearly proved, and of immi-
nent danger; and a receiver will not be appointed when the
matter depends upon the legal title, unless strong grounds are
shown, and the rents and profits are in imminent danger." In
Lloyd vs. Passingham, 16 Ves.,69,70, Lord Eldon said, "the
court interposes by appointing a receiver against the legal title
with reluctance, compelled by judicial necessity, the effect of
fraud clearly proved, and imminent danger, if the intermediate
possession should not be taken under the care of the court."
In the case of The Orphans' Asylum vs. McCartce, 1 Hopkins,
435, it was said, "the fund must be shown to be in danger
before a receiver will be appointed." "The court never ap-
VOL. i—42