Brush

— This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver in an action brought to foreclose a mortgage of a leasehold on an apartment house, together with the furniture and furnishings therein contained.

It is contended by appellant that the court abused its discretion in making the appointment and that the court was without jurisdiction in the premises.

By subdivision 2 of section 564 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is provided in effect that a receiver may be appointed by the court in an action by a mortgagee for the foreclosure of his mortgage “ . . . where it appears . . . that the property is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt.” It is urged by appellant that the court was without jurisdiction in the premises because in the motion for appointment of the receiver plaintiff failed to make an allegation in the language of the statute that the value of the mortgaged property was “insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt.” In that connection, it appears that by allegations contained in the complaint and in affidavits presented by plaintiff in his motion for the appointment of a receiver it was shown “that plaintiff’s security is deteriorating and will so…