CLARK VS. RIDGELY. 71

The case was referred to the Chancellor, before the answers of
the defendants were filed, who said :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

The bill in this case prays for the appointment of a receiver,
and the application is made to the court prior to the coming in
of the answers, and also prior to the time when the defendants
by the rules of the court can be considered as in default for not
answering. In strictness, a receiver should not be appointed
' until after the answer, and although the rule has been broken
through, that such an appointment will not, under any circum-
stances, be made before answer; the grounds which will induce
the court to disregard the old rule, must be very strong and
special. It must appear, that the claimant has a title to the
property, and the court must be satisfied by affidavit, that a
receiver is necessary to preserve the property from loss. 2,
Daniels' Ch. Prac., 1974, and note; Bloodgood vs. dark, 4
Paige, 574.

Indeed it is believed, the authority and duty of the court to
appoint or not appoint a receiver, depends upon fae question
whether the property is or is not in danger in the hands of the
party who may at the time be in possession. As was said by
the court in the case of the Orphans Asylum Society vs. M'Car-
ter et al. in 1 Hopkins, 422, "a receiver is proper if the fund
is in danger, and this principle reconciles the cases found in
the books. There is no case in which the court appoints a re-
ceiver merely because the measure can do no harm."

In conformity with what seems to me the established rule
upon this subject, that a receiver will not be appointed unless
it appears that such a measure is required to preserve the pro-
perty from danger of loss, the late Chancellor remarked in
Hannah K. Chase's case, 1 Bland, 213, "but unless she [the
complainant] has also shown that the rents and profits are in
imminent danger, a receiver cannot be appointed." And in
the case of Lloyd vs. Passingham, 16, Vesey, 59—70, Lord
Eldon, speaking of the reluctance with which the court inter-
feres by appointing a receiver, said, "the court must not only