"tion is material and relevant. As well might a party, who had answered a bill of discovery which "he was not legally bound to answer, afterwards object to the answer being used against him upon "a trial at law, on the ground that he was not "legally bound to answer the bill, but might have "demurred to the same successfully. The decision "of the vice-chancellor was, therefore, right in refus"ing to suppress the exhibit as improper testimony "for the complainants on the hearing. And the "order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs." If a receiver be extended over new or additional property, the order for that purpose is on the terms of such receiver entering into further security, by recognizance, in double the value of such additional property, the proceedings on which order are exactly similar to the giving of security originally. If the receiver, in such case, neglect or is unable to procure such further security, having been required by notice in writing so to do, the course is to apply to discharge him and appoint a new receiver over the entire property at the expense of the estate. And the receiver so discharged will be entitled to the costs of vacating his recognizance, after he shall have accounted; Smith on Receivers, 192. In cases coming within the rule, a receiver who has consented to accept the trust in one suit may be compelled to accept and execute the trust in a second suit, provided both suits are commenced before the chancellor or before the same vice-chancellor, so as to give the court jurisdiction over such receiver. And if the receiver refuses to give security in the second suit, he may be removed from his trust as receiver in the first; and the court may appoint another person receiver in both suits: Cagger v. Howard, 1 Barb. C. R. 368. Receiver's own Solicitor and Counsel. When the receiver is, thus, fully appointed, he should retain his own solicitor and counsel. Nor will it be well for such receiver, even though he may be a professional man, to act as counsel in the business of his trust, as he will not be entitled to any extra counsel fees for his work: In the matter of the Bank of Niagara, 6 Paige's C. R. 213. As a general rule, a receiver is not allowed to employ the counsel, solicitors or attorneys of either of the parties in a suit to assist him in the discharge of his duties. The attorneys, solicitors or counsel of the several parties are bound in duty to their clients to watch the proceedings of the receiver and to see that he faithfully discharges his trust. The undertaking to act as the counsel, solicitor or attorney for the receiver, under such circumstances, would, therefore, frequently cast upon the person, thus assuming to act, inconsistent and conflicting duties— both of which duties could not properly be discharged by the same person: Ryckman v. Parkins, 5 Paige's C. R. 545; see also In the matter of Ainsley, 1 Edwards' V. C. Rep. 576; Ray v. Macomb, 2 ib. 165; Wilson v. Poe, 1 Hogan, 322. The appointment of a receiver who acts under the directions of a defendant, is objectionable: Lupton v. Stephenson, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 484. The rule which prohibits a receiver from employing the solicitor of either of the parties to the suit, in which he is appointed receiver, is intended to protect the rights of the parties to such suit: Warren v. Sprague, 11 Paige's Ch. Reports, p. 200. But if such parties make no objection, the receiver may employ the solicitor of either to aid him in the discharge of his duty: Ib. And a mere stranger to the suit has no right to object to the employment, by the receiver, of the solicitor of one of the parties to the original suit, to institute a new suit against such stranger: Warren v. Sprague, 11 Paige's C. R. 200; S. C. 3 N. Y. Legal Observer, 122. Although we see no objection to a lawyer, who may have been appointed receiver, acting as counsel in the business of the trust, yet he must understand that in doing so, he will not be allowed extra counsel fees on account of it. His commissions are considered to be a full compensation: In the matter of the Bank of Niagara, 6 Paige's C. R. 213. A suit properly commenced is neither barred nor abated by the appointment of a receiver of one of the defendants, pendente lite. At most, such appointment will only render the suit defective, so as to make it irregular for the plaintiff to proceed until the receiver is brought before the court by a supplemental pleading, in the nature of a bill of revivor: Wilson v. Wilson, 1 Barb. C. R. 592. Even if such subsequent appointment of a receiver constituted a valid defence, it could not be pleaded as a bar to the suit generally, but should be pleaded merely in bar of the further continuance of the suit; in analogy to the form of pleading in similar cases in suits at law: Ib. Where, by the appointment of a receiver of one of the defendants pendente lite, a suit has become so defective that it is improper for the complainant to proceed until the receiver is brought before the court, the proper course for the other defendant is to apply for an order that the complainant bring the receiver before the court, by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of revivor within a time to be fixed, or that the bill be dismissed; and that, in the mean time, all proceedings be stayed: Ib. Removing a receiver from part of a large property. If a receiver has a control over a larger estate than is necessary to satisfy claimants, the defendant can apply for a reference to inquire whether it is necessary, for the purpose of the cause, that the receiver should be continued over the entire estate; and if not, what would be a competent part thereof for the purposes of the rights of the parties and creditors in the cause; and on the report coming back, the receiver will be removed from off the rest of the estate. And if the probable result of the reference appeared clear upon the facts, the order would proceed, at once, to discharge the receiver from such parts of the premises as the master should report it unnecessary that he should be continued over: Magrath v. Veitch, 1 Hogan, 110. CHAPTER V. WHAT A RECEIVER MAY AND WHAT HE MAY NOT DO, WITHOUT APPLYING TO THE COURT. LET EJECTMENT. REPAIRS. IMPROVEMENTS. PAY OUT Ejectment. A RECEIVER cannot bring ejectment without leave of the court. Indeed, the court has gone so far as to say "he cannot turn out the tenant" without application; Wynne v. Lord Newborough, 1 Vesey, jr. 165; S. C. 3 Bro. C. C. 88. The court will direct in whose name the suit shall be brought: Green v. Winter, 1 J. C. R. 60; and |