Ind. 244, 17 Am. st. Rep 364, 23 N. E. 791.

54. Gaskell v. Viquesney, 122 Ind. 244, 17 Am. St. Rep. 364, 23 N. E. 791; Gray v. Nelson, 77 Iowa, 63, 41 N. W. 566; Rogers v. Herron, 92 111. 583. Rut see Harrison v. Wyse, 24 Conn. 1, 63 Am. Dec. 151; Bunce v. West, 62 Iowa, 80, 17 N. W. 179.

55. Armistead v. Bishop, 110 Ark. 172, 161 S. W. 182.

56. White v. Maynard. 54 Vt. 575; Demarest v. Berry, 16 N. J. Eq. 481.

57. American Inv. Co. v. Far-rar, 87 Iowa, 437, 54 N. W. 361;

Hardin v. Hardin, 34 S. C. 77, 27 Am. St. Rep. 786, 12 S. E. 936; Greenwood Loan, etc. Ass'n v. Childs, 67 S. C. 251, 45 S. E. 167; Josey v. Smith. - S. C -, 95 S. E. 133, Norfor v. Busby, 19 Wash. 450. 53 Pac. 715.

58. Wagar v. Stone. 26 Mich. 364; Grand Rapids Fifth Nat. Bank v. Pierce, 117 Mich. 376, 75 N. W. 1058. And this even though the mortgage instrument expressly provides for such an appoint-ment. Couper v. Shirley 75 Fed. 168, 21 C. C. A. 288; Hazeltine v. Granger, 44 Mich. 503, 7 N. W. 74.

The general rule, in reference to the appointment of a receiver, in the course of a foreclosure proceeding, to sequestrate the rents and profits, is that this relief will be given when the security is of at least doubtful sufficiency, and the person or persons liable for the debt are insolvent.61 And conversely that a receiver will not be appointed for this purpose unless both of these conditions exist,62 though he may no doubt be

59. Locke v. Klunker, 123 Cal. 231, 55 Pac. 993; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112, 78 N. W. 978. See American Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 89 Fed. 610, 32 C. C. A. 275.

60. Pasco v. Gamble, 15 Fla. 562; Hart v. Respess. 89 Ga. 87, 14 S. E. 910; Philadelphia Mortage & Trust Co. v. Goos, 47 Neb. 804, 66 N. W. 843; Hyman v. Kelly, 1 Nev. 179; Hollenbeck v. Donnell, 94 N Y. 342; Schreiber v. Carey, 48 Wis. 208, 4 N. W. 124; Central Trust Co. v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co., 36 C. C. A. 241, 94 Fed. 275; Elmira Mechanics Soc. of New York v. Stanchfleld, 87 C. C. A. 585, 160 Fed. 811.

61. Ashurst v. Lehman, 86 Ala. 370, 5 So. 731; Price v. Dowdy, 34 Ark. 285; Roach v. Glos, 181 111. 440, 54 N. E. 1022; Wolff v. Ward, 104 Mo. 127, 16 S. W. 161; Phillips v. Eiland, 52 Miss. 721; Land Title & Trust Co. v. Kellogg, 73 N.

J. Eq. 524, 68 Atl. 80; Veerhoff v. Miller, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 355, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1048; Astor v. Turner, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 463, 43 Am. Dec. 766; Kerchner v. Fairley, 80 N. C. 24; Bristow v. Home Bldg. Co., 91 Va. 18, 20 S. E. 946; Winkler v. Magdeburg, 100 Wis. 421, 76 N. W. 332; Strain v. Palmer, 86 C. C. A. 618, 159 Fed. 628.

62. Cone v. Combs, 18 Fed. 576, 5 McCrary, 651; Baker v. City Nat. Bank. 94 Ga. 87, 21 S. E 159; Glennon v. Wilcox, 159. 111. App. 42; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Broek er, 166 Ind. 576, 77 N. E. 1092; Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. 373; New York Bldg. Loan Banking Co., Begly, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 308. 78 N. Y. Supp. 169; Rogers v. Southern Pine Lumber Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 51 S. W. 26; Morris v. Branch-aud. 52 Wis. 187, 8 N. W. 883. In Warren v. Pitts, 114 Ala. 65, 21 So. 494, it was decided that even though the mortgage debtor was insolvent, a receiver would not be appointed if the person in possessappointed in order to prevent waste or dost ruction of the property, without reference to the sufficiency of the security or the insolvency of the obligor.63 In some states, however, the statute authorizes the appointment of a receiver upon a showing as to the inadequacy of the security, without reference to the solvency or insolvency of the mortgage debtor.64

That the mortgage instrument contains an express pledge of the rents and profits has been regarded as a reason in favor of the appointment of a receiver to take charge of them,65 and as authorizing such appointment without reference to the solvency of the mortgage debtor.66 But even though the mortgage instrument specifically pledged the rents and profits, the court will, according to some decisions, before appointing a receiver, consider whether the mortgaged land itself does not constitute adequate security for the debt, so as to render the sequestration of the rents and profits unnecessary.67 ion under the mortgagor were solvent, the theory being that this removed all danger of losing the rents and profits.

63. Post, this section, note 74.

64. Hursh v. Hursh, 99 Ind. 500; Merritt v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 155, 15 L. R. A. 277, 27 N. E. 136; Leader Pub. Co. v. Grant Trust & Sav. Co., 182 Ind. 651, 108 N. E. 121; Douglass v. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.) 608, 622; Woodley v. Holt, 14 Bush (Ky.) 788; Waldron v. First Nat. Bank, 60 Neb. 245, 82 N. W. 856; Roberts v. Parker, 14 S. Dak. 323, 85 N. W. 591; De Bar-rera v. Frost, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 580, 77 S. W. 637.

65. Bagley v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 199 111. 76, 64 N. E. 1085; Ortengren v. Rice, 104 111. App. 428; Des Moines Gas Co. v.

West, 44 Iowa, 23; Wisconsin National Loan & Bldg. Ass'n v. Pride 136 Wis. 102, 116 N. W. 637; Meridian Oil Co. v. Randolph, 26 Okla. 634, 110 Pac. 722.

66. West v. Adams, 106 111. App. 114; Ball v. Marske, 202 111. 31, 66 N. E. 845; Butler v. Frazer, (N. Y. Misc.) 57 N. Y. Supp. 90 But not if he is solvent and the property is adequate security United States Life Ins. Co. v. Ettinger, 32 N. Y. Misc. 378, 66 N. Y Supp. 1.

67. Mason v. Hooper. 166 111. App. 537; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Broecker, 166 Ind. 576, 77 N. E. 1092; Brick v. Hornbeck, 19 N. Y. Misc. 218, 43 N. Y. Supp. 301; Union Trust Co. v. Charlotte Gen. Elec. Co., 152 Mich. 568, 116 N. W. 379. Contra. Lyng v. Marcus.

Even though the mortgage instrument expressly provides for the appointment of a receiver upon a default, the court will not be justified, it seems, in making such appointment, unless the circumstances are such as to render it proper or necessary.68 And it has been decided that when the statute enumerated certain causes for which a receiver of the property might be appointed, such a provision in the instrument did not justify an appointment on some other ground.69 Such a provision, like an express pledge of the rents and profits, has been regarded as authorizing the appointment without reference to the solvency of the mortgage debtor.70

It has been decided that even after foreclosure, if the statute gives the mortgagor a right of redemption for a period named with the incidental right of possession, a receiver may be appointed, upon the application of a mortgage creditor, to collect the rents and profits, for the benefit of the latter.71-72

"Without reference to the necessity or propriety of sequestrating the rents and profits for the purpose of paying the mortgage debt, the court will ordinarily appoint a receiver when this appears to be necessary for the preservation of the corpus of the security.73 This includes not only the prevention of waste upon the property,74 but also the avoidance of possible detriment by reason of disuse, abandonment or failure to continue an established business thereon,75 and likewise the accumulation of delinquent taxes,76 or interest on prior incumbrances,77 with the possibility of sale for taxes or to discharge such incumbrances. A breach of a covenant to keep up insurance appears also, under particular circumstances, to be regarded as a ground for the appointment of a receiver, or at least as a consideration in favor of such appointment.78 Of these various possible causes of detriment to the property, two or more usually co-exist, and they are ordinarily accompanied by possible insufficiency of the security

(N. Y. Misc.) 118 N. Supp. 1056; Sage v. Mendelson, 42 N. Y. Misc. 137, 85 N. Y. Supp. 1008; De Barrera v. Frost, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 580, 77 S. W. 637.

68. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Broecker, 166 Ind. 576, 77 N. E. 1092; New York Bldg. Loan Banking Co. v. Begly, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 308, 78 N Y. Supp. 169; Jar-vis v. McQuaide, 24 N. Y. Misc. 17, 53 N. Y. Supp. 97.

69. Baker v. Varney, 129 Cal. 564, 79 Am. St. Rep. 140, 62 Pac. 100. And see Hazeltine v. Granger, 44 Mich. 503, 7 N. W. 74.

70. Bagley v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 199 111. 76, 64 N. E.

1085. See Hubbell v. Avenue Inv. Co., 97 Iowa, 135, 66 N. W. 85; Fletcher v. Krupp. 35 N. Y. App. Div. 586, 55 N. Y. Supp. 146.

71-72. First Nat. Bank v. Illinois Steel Co. 174 111. 140, 51 N. E. 200; Haas v. Chicago Bldg. Soc. 89 III. 498. Sweet & Clark Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 149 Ind. 305, 49 N. E 159; Merritt v. Gibson, 129 Ind. 155, 15 L. R. A. 277; Hyman v. Kelly, 1 Nev. 182, 27 N. E. 136; Astor v. Turner, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 437, 43 Am. Dec. 766. Contra, West v. Conant, 100 Cal. 231, 34 Pac. 705, Swan v. Mitchell, 82 Iowa, 307, 308, 47 N. W. 1042.

73. Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co.. 107 U. S. 378, 395. 27 L. Ed. 609; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112, 78 N. W. 978; Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. Douglas, 12 Bush (Ky.) 673.

74. Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co. 107 U. S. 387, 395, 27 L. Ed. 609; Brasted v. Sutton, 30 N. J. Eq. 462; Dunlap v. Hedges, 35 W. Va. 287, 13 S. E. 656; Harding v. Garber, 20 Okla. 11, 93 Pac. 539. That the acts of waste must be such as to jeopardize the security, see Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. California Development Co., 164 Cal. 58, 127 Pac. 502.

75. Sweet & Clark Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 149 Ind. 305, 49 N. E. 159; Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Cady, 76 Minn. 112, 78 N. W. 978: Lowell v. Doe, 44 Minn. 144, 46 N. W. 297; Thompson v. Natchez Water Sewer Co., 68 Miss. 423, 9 So. 821; Colins v Gross, 51 Wash or by insolvency on the part of mortgage debtor. In granting the application for a receiver the courts refer to any and all circumstances tending to justify the appointment, and it is consequently impossible to say to what extent the existence of one of the circumstances referred to would, of itself, be regarded as justifying a receivership.

516, 99 Pac. 573.

76. Jackson v. Hooper, 107 Ala. 634, 18 So. 254; Ortengren v. Rice, 104 111. App. 428; Lowell v. Doe, 44 Minn. 144, 46 N. W. 297; San-ford v. Anderson, 69 Neb. 249, 95 N. W. 632; Mahon v. Crothers, 28 N. J. Eq. 567; Browning v. Sire, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 399, 67 N. Y. Supp. 798; American Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 C. C. A. 275, 89 Fed. 610.

77. Farmers Nat. Bank of Owatonna v. Backus, 64 Minn. 43, 66 N. W. 5; Warwick v. Hammeli, 32 N. J. Eq. 427; Keogh Mfg. Co. v. Whiston, 26 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 358.

78. Winkler v. Magdeburg, 100 Wis. 421, 76 N. W. 332; American Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 C. C. A. 275. 89 Fed. 610; Lowell v. Doe, 44 Minn. 144. 46 N. W. 297; Jackson v. Hooper, 107 Ala. 634, 18 So. 254.