Arey v. . Williams

Pee. CuriaM. Revisal, 453, requiring a defendant in ejectment to give bond before putting in a defense to tbe action, does not abridge tbe power of tbe court to appoint a receiver to secure tbe rents and profits. Kron v. Dennis, 90 N. C., 327 ; Durant v. Crowell, 97 N. C., 374. In tbe present case tbe insolvency of the defendant was admitted, and for that reason and on account of other matters made to appear to tbe court, tbe judge, instead of accepting a bond, appointed a receiver to take charge of tbe property pending tbe litigation. This is an application by tbe defendant to this Court for a supersedeas to vacate tbe order of tbe judge appointing tbe receiver and to permit tbe defendant to give bond. Under tbe general power conferred upon this Court of “general supervision and control over tbe proceedings of tbe inferior courts,” we might exercise this extraordinary duty in a proper case, but certainly would not do so except *611 under unusual circumstances and when there has been a gross abuse of discretion on tbe part of tbe judge below. Sucb is not tbe case here, and upon looking into tbe affidavits, if tbe matter were before us for review upon appeal, in tbe ordinary course, we should affirm bis action. Motion denied.