LATHAM V. OHAFEB. 5^5 �Latham V. Chafeb. �{Uireuit Court, D. Mhod« Island. May 23, 1881.) �1. ReMOVAL OP Trustee— MlBMAHAGBMBNT—FBAUD—lNJimCTION—RBi- CBIVBE. �In a suit for the removal of a trustee, a court of equity will not summarily interfere, before answer flled, by the granting of a prelim- inary injunction and the appointment of a receiver, upon charges of fraud and bad business management, unless such charges are clearly established, and the peculiar circumstances of the case imperatively demand the relief sought. — [Ed. �In Equity. Motion for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver. �Jerome B. Kimball, Andrew J. Patten, Benj. F. Butler, and Roger Prior, for complainant. �G. Frank Parkhurst,Jas. Tillinghast, Benj. F. Thurston, and Chas. Hart, for defendant. �CoLT, D. J. The bill under which this motion arises is for the removal of a trustee. It does not ask that the prop- erty may be sold or distributed, and only for such an account as would be rendered necessary by a removal. Upon the face of the papers it appears that this property has remained in the possession of the trustee for more than seven years, "though no complaint of delay is made in the bill, and there is no prayer to hasten the final discharge of the trust'.' We are judically informed that a recent decision has remoVed grave obstacles in the way of giving title to tke estates held by the trustee, and it is to be hoped that nothing in this pro- ceeding will be allowed to interfere with a disposition of said estates in acoordance with the trusts under which they are held. �The immediate and only question now before us is not ■whether, upon a full hearing after answer filed, the defend- ant shall be removed as trustee, but whether, at this stage oj the proceedings, such a case has been made out as calls for the summary interference of the court by way of a prelim- inary injunction and the appointment of a receiver. The merita of this controversy, as they may be developed upon a ��� �
