The opinion
Smith, C. J.,
(after stating the case). The case comes before us in a form that requires us to examine the evidence and deduce the facts material in passing upon the interlocutory action of the Court:
1. It sufficiently appears from the proofs taken that the real estate is of value more than sufficient to satisfy all the claims set out in the complaint, nor is there any evidence of others to be provided for.
2. That the co-partners, Brown & Brown, now in possession of the goods, are carrying on the. business in the usual way, disposing of and replenishing the stock as is needed, and that one, if not both of them, is solvent, and able to
*525
meet any recovery the plaintiffs may be able to effect in the action.
3. That as there is no present necessity for the withdrawal of the goods from the custody of the possessors, for the security of the plaintiffs, the change might be attended with very injurious consequences to others-and damage to the property itself.
4. That there is ah unpaid residue of the purchase money for the share of the goods of the said Maggie PL bought by the said Browns, and for which they gave their note, to-wit, $997, which may be withheld as security for the plaintiffs’ claims, and all the parties assented thereto.
While, then, the evidence is quite strong as to the
mala fides
of'the dealings between the debtor and his wife, (a point upon which we express no opinion upon the case presented and heard only upon
ex parte
proofs, and leave it to be passed upon by the jury untrammelled by an expression of our own), we see no adequate reasons for taking the goods and the business out of the hands of the firm and committing them to an appointee of the Court.
In
Leverson
v.
Elson,
88 N. C., where a similar application was made and refused, this Court said: “ We are not called upon to pass on the validity of the assignment,” assailed as are the transactions in this case for fraud,
“
in this collateral inquiry, and upon mere
ex parte
affidavits; we interpose only when it is manifest that the fund is mismanaged and in danger of being lost, or when the insolvency of an unfit trustee is present or imminent.”
So it is said in
Hanna
v.
Hanna,
89 N. C., 68 : “We cannot see why an injunction against the sale or injurious use of the property would not adequately secure the fruits of nn adjudication in favor of the plaintiff, without disturbing the defendants in their possession, while the latter might suffer serious loss, and prevent inconvenience, if the goods should be withdrawn and converted into money. It is the duty
*526
of the Judge, in passing upon such a question, to
consider the consequences of the proposed action to both parties, and not to needlessly injure the one for the purpose of obviating some slight disadvantage to the other.”
These considerations prevail in full force in the case before us, and guide us-to the conclusion to sustain the ruling of the Judge in refusing to make the appointment, but without reference to his findings of fact.' There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.