HICKS V. JENNINGS. 856 �însolvency, to remain in the custody of îts effects and to administer them? Could the court expect to attract and retain the confidence of the public and of its suitors, if it should sanction such an act? I think not. The insolvency and abnegation of the company left its effects in the legal and rightful custody of ho one, and the court must at once provide for the emergency by appointing a receiver. �It has not been the policy or practice of this court, in ap- pointing receivers for insolvent companies, to appoint any one who had been offioially and responsibly connected with the mismanagement which brought his company's affairs to ruin ; and, for that reason, I cannot appoint Mr. Blakey as recelTer here, in whoae personal integrity I -would otherwise have the utmost confidence, and whose high character I most cheer- fully acknowledge. �The judge then announced the appointment of A. L. Boni- ■ware, Esç[., as receiver of the company. ���HioKS and Wife v. Jenkingb. �{GiTcuit Court, if. D. Georgia. Octolier, 1880.) �1 MoRTGAGE— FoRECLOSTjRE— Fratid.— Several tracts of land were sold under one contract, and separate deeds naming a distinct considera- tion were given for each tract. Hdd, that fraiud and want of consid- eration in the sale of one tract could be set up as adefence in a suit to f oreclose a purchase-money mortgage upon another of such tracts. �2. 8ame — Samb— Bamb. — Rdd, further, that such defence could be set up againat the heirs and distri butees of the mortgagor, where such mort- gage had been transferred to them as an advancement. �In Equity. �The purpose of this suit is to foreclose a mortgage executed hy the defendant to one Henry Irby, now deeeased, dated May 7, 1877, on certain lots of land in Hall county, Geor- gia, known as the "Glade Mines," and containing 2,000 acres, to secure a note dated the said May 7, 1877, made by ����
