OVERTON V. MEMPHIB & LITTLE ROCK E. 00. 867 �claims in his bill to be equitably eutitled to $1,500,000 of deferred stock, but his right to this is disputed by the company. �"Where the relief sought is founded upon a disputed equity, a court of chancery will with great reluctance and hesitation take the posses- sion from a defendant holding the clear legal title." Schenckv. Peay, 1 Woolw. 175. �Not one of the actual holders of the stock or bonds of the company, wbo would be aflfected similarly with the plaiutiflf by a sale of the road under the decree, are before the court. In view of this fact the court ought to hesitate before appointing a receiver on the ground of a possible in jury to one holding nothing more than a disputed equi- table claim for deferred stock. �2. While the bill alleges the trustee is unable to raise the money to provide for the decree "on his own account," it does not allege that his cestui que trust cannot do so. And it: does allege "that the bondholders of said road and others interested therein, as he is in- formed and believes, would and will advance the money to provide for said decree, if they had any assurance that it would be refunded to them out of the earnings of the road." No order of this court, in advance, is necessary to give this assurance, or for the protection of such of the holders of the stock and securities of the company as may provide the money to day the decree or purchase the property at the sale. Upon payment of the decree they are entitled to be reimbursed their money, and, to this end, to be subrogated to all the rights of the state under the decree, or, upon a purchase, they are entitled to all that a sale under the decree can impart, including the right to the immediate possession, and, of course, the right to receive the earnings of the road, as against all junior encumbrancers, until they are reimbursed, and a receiver of this court would have no greater powers. �3. Suppose the receiver to be appointed and the proceeding to run its course, as contemplated in the bill, it is quite obvions the court would be burdened with the administration of the business affairs of the company for a long period. Undoubtedly there are cases in which a court of equity may, through its receiver, take possession and control of the business of corporations and individuals. But it is a juris- diction to be sparingly exercised. None of the prerogatives of a court of equity have been pushed to such extreme limits as this, and there is none so likely to lead to abuses. It is not the province of a court of equity to take possession of the property, and conduct the business of ��� �
