HANNAH K. CHASE'S CASE.

dower, had, since the institution of this suit, taken the benefit of
the insolvent law; and that if he were permitted to continue either
directly or indirectly to receive the rents and profits, they would be
wholly lost. Upon which she prayed that a receiver might be
appointed. Upon this petition an order was passed, allowing the
defendants to show cause on the 22d of the same month. After
which the matter was brought up for a final decision upon the cir-
cumstances as stated by the court.

26th April, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petition for the
appointment of a receiver standing ready for hearing, the parties
were heard by counsel, and the proceedings read and considered.

The defendants have not thought proper to put in a formal
answer in writing to the plaintiff's petition, but have been content
with showing cause verbally. If a petition of this kind, bringing
before the court a matter which could not have been made the sub-
ject of a mere motion, because of the necessity of putting upon
the record the new facts therein set forth, and apprising the party
of all the circumstances on which the application is made, so as to
enable him to controvert them, if he can; be not regularly and
properly denied by a written answer on oath, the whole, or so
much of it as is not denied must, by analogy to the course of this
court in similar cases, be taken to be true, (a)

I have so recently had occasion to consider the general nature
and utility of the power of this court to appoint a receiver,(6) that
it will be unnecessary upon this application to notice what has
been said in argument as to the novelty, or the unsettled nature
of the authority of this court to make such an appointment, or
as to the very oppressive purposes to which, it is said, it may be
applied. It will be sufficient here again to observe, that I consider
the matter as having been long since fully settled, and the power
as one of as great utility as any which belongs to the court.

It has been mainly urged, that the court will not appoint a
receiver against the legal title, but upon very special and strong
1 ground. This is admitted. But the matter in controversy between
these parties is a legal title, or it is nothing. This is a bill for
dower, a mere legal demand; and the relief the plaintiff seeks is to
have her particular estate set apart out of the general estate of the
defendants, and to have the rents and profits thereof accounted for.

(a) Shipbrooke v. Hinchingbrook, 13 Ves. 393; 2 Harr. Pra. Chan. 40,129, 133
(b) Williamson v. Wilson, 24th April, 1826, post 000.