1. It is, no doubt, a general rule that one party should not be appointed a Receiver without the other's consent. But departure from that rule may be justified by the special circumstances of the case. Such special circumstances have, in my opinion, been shown by the lower Court to exist; and I may also refer to the fact that the estate is comparatively small and can ill-afford the, cost of a paid Receiver. Appellant contends that the respectable person nominated by her should be appointed without payment. I am not, however, prepared to hold that the lower Court used its discretion wrongly in refusing his services, since the Court's control over an honorary Receiver must always be small.
2. It is further contended that no appointment is necessary because it will not be advantageous to call in some of the debts in question, which represent profitable investments and should not be terminated. It will be open to appellant to move the lower Court with reference to these items to direct the Receiver not to sue for them at once, if postponement is advantageous to the estate. The fact, if it be one, that there are such items, is not material with reference to the general question whether a Receiver to protect the estate should be appointed.
3. This appeal is dismissed.