American Manganese Steel Co. v. Alaska Mines Corp.

(after stating the facts as above).

It may be conceded that the appellant presented to the court below a strong prima facie showing of fraud in the manner of the appellee’s acquisition of the property of the Dredging Company, and of notice to the appellee of the fraud; but that was not all that was necessary to show in order to entitle the appellant to the appointment of a receiver. It was required to go further, and show the necessity of the .appointment for its protection while the suit was pending in the court below. To establish the necessity of the appointment of a receiver in an equitable suit such as this, it must be shown by clear proof that there is imminent danger that, unless a receiver is appointed, the property involved will deteriorate in value or be wasted, and that the plaintiff will thereby suffer irreparable loss. And there can be no irreparable loss if the defendant is solvent and able to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand. International Trust Co. v. Decker Bros., 152 F. 78 , 81 C. *687 C.A. 302, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 152; Overton v. Memphis, etc., R. Co. (C.C.) 10 F. 866 ; Ryder v. Bateman (C.C.) 93 F. 16 ; Folk v. United States, 233 F. 177 , 147 C.C.A. 183 .

Again, in…