tiATHAM V. CHAFEB. 527 �" The high prerogative act of taking property ont of the hands of one and putting it in pound, under the order of a judge, ought not to he taken, except to prevent manifest wrdng immediately pending." �While the application for a receiver is said to be addressed to the Sound discretion of the court, yet it is a discretion regulated by legal principles. Lenox v. Notrebe, Hamp. 225. �In Clarke v, Bidgely, 1 Md. Ch. 70, the chancellor ob- serves : �"Indeed, it is believed the authority and duty of the court to appoint or not appoint a reCaiver depends upon the question whcther the prop- erty is or is not in danger in the hands of the party who may at the time be in possession." �And in Orphan Asylum v. McCartie, 1 Hopk. Ch. 435, it is �said: �"A receiver is proj-er if the fund is in danger, and the principle recon- cUes the cases found in the books. " �We are asked, in the case before us, to appoint a receiver �before answer, and where. the property is in the hands of a �trustee under an active trijst, With regard to appointing �receivers before ans-wer, it ia laid down, in High on Eeceivers, �§ 106, as follows : ' �" While the practice of appointing rectivers before answer, in cases ojt emergency, is thus shown to be well established and generally f ollowed by courts of equity ih this country, yet the grounds wbich will induce the court to interfere, at this stage of a cause, must be very strongy aiid there must: be clear proof oi fraud, or of iinmediate danger to the property, unless it is talien into the custody of the court." �Saysthe court, in Whiteheadv. Worten, 43 Miss. 523: ■ �"If the application is made before the merlts of the cause are disclosed, as before a pro confessa or answer flled, there must be strong grounds laid. * « * There must be strong and special reasons for the appointment before answer, as on proof of fraud by affldavits or imme- diate danger to the property unless at once taken in charge by the court. ' ' �And, again, in Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 115 : �"A receiver is not usually appoihted unless fraud is clearly proved by affldavit, or when it is shown that imminent danger wouldensue if Uie property is not taken under the care of the court before an answer is.put in." �Again, it is with extreme reluctance that «ourts interfere �in the case of an express trust, either by way of iujunction or �receiver. ��� �
