. receiver is appointed only in those cases where in the exercise of a sound discretion it appears necessary that some indifferent person should have charge of the property; Ex parte Walker, 25 Ala. 81; only during the pendency of a suit ; 1 Atk. 578 ; 2 Du. 632; except in extreme cases; 2 Atk. 315; Bissell v. Besson, 47 N. J. Eq. 580, 22 Atl. 1077; as when a fund in litigation is in per il ; Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 2 Blatch. 78, Fed. Cas. No. 10,760; and ex parte; 14 Beay. 423 ; Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 373 ; or before answer ; 4 Price 346; Bloodgood v. Clark, 4 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 574; in special cases only; and, generally, not till all the parties are before the court; 2 Russ. Ch. 145 ; 1 Hog. Ir. 93. Ordinarily a re ceiver will not be appointed on an em parte application ; Maish v. Bird, 59 Ia. 307, 13 N. W. 298. The action of the court in the appointment of a receiver is not reviewable on appeal ; Crane v. McCoy, 1 Bond. 422, Fed. Cas. No. 3,354; Williamson v. R. Co., 1 Biss. 198, Fed. Cas. No. 17,753 ; but by the Judicial Code (March 3, 1911) an appeal to the circuit court appeals lies from an in terlocutory decree appointing a receiver ; it must be taken in thirty days ; it takes prece dence in the appellate court; and pro ceedings below are not stayed unless other wise ordered by the district court, or the appellate court, or a judge thereof.
The appointment of a receiver is authoriz ed when the party seeking the appointment shows prima facie a title reasonably free from doubt, or a lien upon the subject-mat ter of controversy to which he has a right to resort for the satisfaction of his claim, and that it is in danger of loss from waste, mis conduct, or insolvency if the defendant is permitted to retain the possession; Ashurst v. Lehman, 86 Ali. 370, 5 South. 731; Elwood v. Bank, 41 Kan. 475, 21 Pac. 673 ; Durant Y. Crowell, 97 N. C. 367, 2 S. E. 541.
One will not be appointed, except under special circumstances making a strong case, where a party is already in possession of the property under a legal title; 19 Ves. 59 ; 2 Y. & C. 351; as a trustee ; 2 Bro. C. C. 158; 1 My. & C. 163 ; Poythress v. Poythress, 16 Ga. 406; 2 J. & W. 294;' an executor ; 13 Ves. 266 ; tenant in common ; 2 Dick. Ch. 800 ; 4 Bro. C. C. 414 ; 2 S. & S. 142 ; a mort gagee ; Patten v. Transit Co., 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 235; 13 Ves. 377; 1 J. & W. 176, 627; 1 Hog. Ir. 179; or a mortgagor when the debt is not wholly due; Bank of Ogdensburgh v. Arnold, 5 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 38; a director of a corporation in a suit by a stockholder ; Hager v. Stevens, 6 N. J. Eq. 374 ; where the property is or should be already in the possession of some court, as during the con testation of a will in the proper court ; 2 Atk. 378 ; 7 Sim. 512; 1 My. & C. 97; but see In re Colvin's Estate, 3 Md. Ch:Dec. 278; when admiralty is the proper forum; Frith v. Crowell, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 209 ; or where there is already a receiver ; 1 Hog. Ir. 199; Howell v. Ripley, 10 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 43; or where a public office is in litigation; Tappan v. Gray, 9 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 507 ; where
the equitable title of the party asking a re ceiver is incomplete a" made out, as where he has delayed asking 'for one ; 1 Hog. Ir.
118; 1 Donn. Min. Cas. 71; or where the necessity is not very apparent, as on account merely of the poverty of an executor ; 12 Ves. 4 ; 18 Beay. 161 ; pending the removal of a trustee ; Poythress v. Poythress, 16 Ga, 406 ; where a trustee mixes trust-money with his own; Orphan Asylum Soc. v. McCartee, 1 Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 429.
A person holding an unliquidated claim against a corporation is not entitled to the appointment of a receiver, which would be a denial of trial by jury ; Swan L. & C. Co. v Frank, 148 U. S. 604, 13 Sup. Ct. 691, 31 L. Ed. 577 ; Hollins v. Iron Co., 150 U. S. 14 Sup. Ct. 127, 37 L. Ed. 1113 ; mere in solvency of a corporation, does not authorize the appointment of a receiver at the suit 01 general creditors, but one will be appointec where it is no longer able to proceed wits Its business; Doe v. Transp. Co., 64 Fed. 928 A receiver will not be appointed without the consent of the corporation on the appli cation of a mere contract creditor, and es pecially where be cannot claim a definite sum as due ; Leary v. Nay. Co., 82 Fed. 775 Where the business of a corporation 1: being mismanaged, a receiver will be ap Pointed at the suit of a stockholder ; St Louis & S. Coal & Min. Co. v. Edwards, 102 Ill. 472 ; or where there is insolvency rule gross mismanagement ; U. S. Shipbuilding Co v. Conklin, 126 Fed. 136, 60 C. C. A. 680.
Where the only indebtedness of an vent corporation is to the party bringing the creditor's bill, a receiver is unnecessary ; Bal timore & 0. Tel. Co. v. Tel. Co., 54 Fed. 50 4 C. C..A. 184, 8 U. S. App. 340.
It is not necessary that a creditor's claim should first be reduced to judgment; Chicagc & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Kenney, 159 Ind. 72, 62 E. 26, contra, Callahan v. Ice & Ref. Co., 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 479, 7 0. C. D. 349.
A federal court has no jurisdiction to ap point a receiver for an insolvent corporation at the suit of a simple contract creditor whose demand is not in judgment; and con sent of the debtor will not confer jurisdic tion; Maxwell v. McDaniels, 184 Fed. 311, 106 C. C. A. 453 ; that the waiver by the corporation of the objection will confer ju risdiction was held in Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Ry. Co., 157 Fed. 440; American Can Co. v. Preserving Co., 183 Fed. 96, 105 C. C. A. 388; that the absence of a judgment or other lien does not defeat the court's jurisdiction, see Dodds v. Tunnel Co., 188 Fed. 447. In McGraw v. Mott, 179 Fed. 646, 103 C. C. A. 204, it was considered that, independent of statutory authority, insolvency alone is not ground in a federal court for the appoint ment of a receiver, but the court based its appointment there on a New Jersey act Inch authorizes a suit by any creditor or stockholder to wind up an insolvent corpora tion, creating a right which can be enforced in a federal court.