THOMPSON VS. DIFFENDERFER. 495

occasion, could only be vindicated by an unusual and pressing
emergency, which would leave it no alternative. The absolute
necessity of putting its hand at once upon the property, to save
it from destruction or loss, must be clearly shown, or in the
language of Lord Eldon, "fraud or imminent danger, if the in-
termediate possession should not be taken by the court, must
be clearly proved."

In this case, as before observed, there can be no doubt that
the facts charged in the bill do present an aspect of imminent
danger, and contemplated, if not actual fraud, which would
constitute the judicial necessity that would justify the court in
putting forth its power to preserve the property, by the strong
measure of taking possession of it; though by so doing the
business of the defendants, as merchants, would be broken up.

But the facts charged in the bill are denied by the answer of
the Diffenderfers, and though a strong effort has been made to
break down the answer, by exhibiting supposed inconsistencies
and contradictions in its several statements, and dwelling with
emphasis upon the improbability of some of the facts averred
in it, I cannot, after a careful examination, bring myself to the
conclusion, that it is not entitled to the weight usually allowed
to answers in chancery.

I do not find in it any statements which may not reasonably
be reconciled with other statements contained in it; and with
regard to the argument founded upon the assumed improba-
bility of its truth, it may be observed, that the defendants have
spoken under the solemn responsibility of an oath, and with all
the penalties, temporal and eternal, of perjury, full before them.
Under the weight of these heavy sanctions, they have denied
each and all of the allegations of the bill, upon the admission
or proof of which, the right of the court to appoint a receiver
depended.

It has been urged, that with respect to some of the statements
of the answer, though responsive to the bill, the defendant
should be required to offer proof in their support; because
such proof was within their reach, whilst it was inaccessible to
the complainants. But I apprehend, the rule that the answer,