To justify a redeiver, some proper final re lief in equity must be asked for in the bill. It is not a final relief that a receiver may bring suits ; Zuber v. Min. Co., 180 Fed. 625. There must be an imperative necessity for the appointment; Lemker v. Kalberlah, 105 Ill. App. 445 ; it is a purely ancillary reme dy ; Vila v. Storage Co., 68 Neb. 222, 94 N. W. 136, 97 N. W. 613, 63 L. R. A. 791, 110 Am. 6t. Rep. 400, 4 Ann. Cas. 59; to prevent irreparable loss; Hayes v. Land Co:, 147 Ala. 340, 41 South. 909.
Where a debtor's assets are claimed by various creditors, a creditor may be appoint ed to collect and preserve them in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits ; Hopper v. Morgan (N. J.) 42 Ad. 171.
A receiver was appointed for a water com pany after a decree had been made depriv ing it of its privilege to maintain its plant, though there had been no default on the bonds ; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Water works Co., 139 Fed. 661; a receiver may be appointed before default, to preserve the property; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Water works Co., 139 Fed. 661.
Where a partnership has been dissolved, a receiver will usually be appointed if the property is unsafe in the hands of the part ners; Wilcox v. Pratt, 125 N. Y. 688, 25 N. E. 1091; Bufkin v. Boyce, 104 Ind. 53, 3 N. E. 615. On a bill for dissolution on account of improper conduct of partners, a receiver is almost a matter of course; but where a partnership has expired by limitation and there is no special ground for a receiver one will not ordinarily be appointed; Bufkin v. Boyce, 104 Ind. 53, 3 N. E. 615. A receiver will not be appointed to continue the busi ness, except temporarily; Allen v. Hawley, Fla. 164, 63 Am. Dec. 198.
A receiver will be appointed if there is fraud or mismanagement on the part of one partner ; or a disagreement between them ; or an appropriation of firm property to individual use ; or one partner is excluded from the management ; or where a liquidat ing partner is insolvent ; Smith, Rec. § 191.
Receivers will be appointed to take charge of trust property when it is in danger, and such appointment is necessary for its preser vation ; Hatcher v. Massey, 66 Ga,. 66 ; as where the trustee is not responsible ; Ellett v. Newman, 92 N. C. 519 ; or neglects his du ties ; 4 D. & W. 117; or uses the trust funds on his own account ; Albright v. Albright, 91 N. C. 220 ; or refuses to collect a debt be longing to the estate ; L. R. 8 Ch. App. 597 ;
or has failed to obey an order to pay over money of the trust ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1130 ; but ordinarily the remedy will be by the removal of the trustee. The jurisdiction to appoint a receiver exists, but will usually be exer cised only in very special cases.
Where a sole trustee is insolvent, a re ceiver will be appointed ; L. R. 1 Ch. App. 325; or where the trustee is poor and of bad habits ; 12 Sim. 363.
Equity will appoint a receiver as between co-tenants of real estate in cases of necessi ty; Low v. Holmes, 17 N. J. Eq. 151; though the cases are rare ; as in case of partition suits; Goodale v. Dist. Court, 56 Cal. 32; and where one tenant excludes the other from possession; or is insolvent and refuses to account; or refuses to execute the neces sary leases or interferes with the collection of rent; Smith, Rec. § 317.
It is said that equity will more willingly appoint a receiver of a mining property than of ordinary property ; High, Recrs. § 606.
A receiver will be appointed for good cause in a suit for specific performance; Galloway v. Campbell, 142 Ind. 324, 41 N. E. 597; Leonard v. Whaley, 91 Hun 304, 36 N. Y. Supp. 147; but see Darusmont v. Pfit ton, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 597. Under special and urgent circumstances, a receiver may be ap pointed as between lessor and lessee ; Chica go & A. 0. & M. Co. v. Petroleum Co., 57 Pa. 83.
In Carey v. Carey, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 425, the income of property of the defendant in di vorce proceedings was placed in the hands of a receiver to provide for the wants of his family during the divorce litigation and after its termination; so in case of a decree for alimony; Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367.
A receiver will be appointed to take charge of the estate ef a decedent, but "a strong case must be made out to induce the court to dispossess a trustee or executor who is willing to act"; Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Woods 262, Fed. Cas. No. 5,905, affirmed in id. 91 U. S. 254, 23 L. Ed. 345. Pending pro bate proceedings the property will in some cases be protected by the appointment of a receiver ; In re Colvin, 3 Md. Ch. 279. In Appeal pf Schlecht, 60 Pa. 172, where a will had been admitted to probate and an appeal was pending on an issue to try the validity of the will, a bill for the appointment of a receiver was refused.