BTE-WAEÏ t?. CHESAPEAKB & QHIO OANAL CO. Ie9 �orders of his commanding oiScer. If he do no more than that he acquires no new residence thereby, and the place' of his residence at the time of his enlistment continues to be his residence for the purpose of voting without reference toTirhere he may be stationed. ���Btewart V. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. and othsrs •' �[Circuit Court, D. Maryland. , 1881.) �L Application ïob Rkceivbb of a Canal Company Refusbd. — The holder of a bOnd secured by flrst mortgage of the tolls and revenue of a canal flled a blU for the appointment of a receiver, alleging that the default in payment of the bond was caused by wasteful and corrupt mismanagement of the corporation. The mortgage provided that the corporation should remain in possession unless it was shown afûrmatively that the default resulted from other causes than failure of business. Hdd, that to induce the court to appoint a receiver to manage a work attended with such risk and difiSculty, for an'indeû- oite time, the complainant must show, beyond question, that the de^ fault had arisen from mismanagement, or that the safetyof the prop- erty, if left in the possession of the corporation, was threatened by rea- 80n of corporate misconduct ; and it must also appear that the appoint- ment of a receiver would probably resuit in effectuai relief. �a. Insolvbnt Cohpohation— Bondholdbbs — Rkcbiveb — Account of Receipts and Disbubsements. — It appearing that the corporation was largely insolvent ; that the bonds were in default ; that by the ex- press tenus of the mortgage the bondholders had no right to have pos- session of the canal and collect the tolls and revenue, and had no voice in controUing the expenditures, and no convenient method of scruti- nizing them ; and it appearing that with earnest economy there might be an excess of revenue o ver working expenses sufflcient to pay interest on the bonds : Hdd, that the corporation was to be treated as a trustee holding possession of the canal for the beneflt of creditors, and that without appointing a receiver the court would, for the protection of the bondholders, retain the bill in order that at stated intervais the corporation might render accounts of its receipts and disbursements. �8. CosTS— FoEM OF Deobeb. �In Equity. �•For the opinion of the court on the jurisdictional questions raised In this case see Stewart v. O. de 0. Canal Oo. 1 Fbd. Rep. 361, ����
