LATHAU V. CHaFEE. 529 �his death, to keep the property in his own possession, and to appropriate the same to liis own use, as if the deed had never been made, and even to sell and otherwise dispose thereof at iiis pleasure ; and ttiat since the deatli of the debtor the trustee lias suflered liis widow and other persons to retain said trust property, and to receive and appropriate the rents, issues, and profits accruing theref rom, the annual income of which is worth some $8,000 ; * * * that the administrator of the assignor in Ala- bama is proceeding to dispose of so much of the trust property as is sit- uated in that state, and thus impair its validity by creating conflicting titles thereto. It is apparent that here the trust propeity was in great peril unless action was taken at once." �In the light of the foregoing authorities we corne to the special consideration of the case before us. The defendant, Chafee, bas been in possession of the property and adminis- tering this trust for a period of oyer seven years. He was appointed trustee at the request of the assignois, and with the assent of a large majority of the creditors, as shown by their acceptance of the trust notes. The court is now asked, upon a bill filed by one crediter, before answer and a hearing upon the merits, to enjoin the defendant from further man- aging the estate, and to deprive him at once of its possession. If there is not great danger that the complainant will Buffer irreparable loss by any delay, it would seem better, in a cause of sueh magnitude, and where the interests of so many'are affected, to proceed to a full hearing upon the merits before calling into action these extraordinary remedies, which might .possibly work great injury. �An examination of the faets as disclosed in the affidavits do not in our opinion show such an impending danger to the fund as will justify the court in granting this motion. The charges against the defendant relate largely to the sale at a sacrifice of a portion of the trust estate, the purohase of sup- plies for the mills, especially cotton, at a high price, and the sale of the products at a low price. No fraud is here charged, but rather bad business management, which the defendant denies. As to the alleged purchase by the defendant, as treasurer, of the stock of the Sindnick Company, it can hardly be said to apply to the matter now before us. Whatever bearing all these and other like charges may have, at a hear- ing upon the merits, for the purpose of this motion it is not �T.7,no.5— 34 ��� �
