Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/538

 696 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �full hearing and proper proof, are not now under considera- tion; but only the question whether such an emergency exista, as shown by the bill and affidavits, as warrants the court, through the exercise of itg extraordinary powers of injunction and receivership, in taking this vast property from the possession of the defendant and into its own custody, during the time that may elapse before a final hearing can be had upon the merits. Whether the defendant shall be removed as trustee is one thing to be determined at the proper time, and upon proper proof; but whether a receiver shall be appointed pendente lite is quite a different thing, to be decided by considerations which may involve in a slight degree the other and principal question raised by this suit. �The main object of both an interlocutory injunction and a receiver is to preserve the subject-matter in oontroversy until the rights of the parties are determined. High on Eec. 476. They are invoked for the prevention of future injuries, rather than for the redress of grievances already committed. They are prospective rather than retrospective in their operation. Id. If there are past wrongs to redress, or rights to be deter- mined, the proceedings are to be oonducted in the regular way, by answer and pi;oof. It is the immediate danger to the fund in the immediate future or pending litigation that justifies the court in resorting, before a final hearing, to these summary measures. �In the appointment of a receiver pendente lite the court acts with extreme caution, and only under such peculiar circumstances as demand summary relief. High on Eeceiv- ers, § 3, says: �" The exercise of the extraordinary power of a chancellor in appoint- ing receivers, as in granting writs of injunction or ne exeat, is an exceed- ingly delicate and responsible duty, to be discharged by the court with the utmost caution, and only under such special or peculiar circum- stances aa demand summary relief ; * * * and, because it divests the owuer of propertj' of its possession before a final hearing, it is re- garded as a severe remedy, not to be adopted save in a strong case, and neur unless plaintiff wovld othenoise bein danger, of suffering irreparable loss." �In Grawford v. Boss, 39 Ga. 44, the court uses this lan- guage: ��� �