Delano v. Butler, Receiver was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity had the power to sell mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagor. The case was brought by the mortgagor, Delano, who argued that the receiver had no such power. The Supreme Court held that the receiver did have the power to sell the mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagor. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed by the court of equity to protect the interests of all parties involved in the case, and that the receiver had the power to sell the mortgaged property in order to protect those interests. The Court also noted that the mortgagor had the right to object to the sale, and that the court of equity had the power to review the sale and set aside any sale that was not in the best interests of all parties involved. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the receiver had the power to sell mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagor, and that the mortgagor had the right to object to the sale and have the court of equity review the sale.

In the case of Delano v. Butler, Receiver, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a receiver appointed by a court in one state could be sued for damages in another state. The majority opinion held that such suits were not allowed under federal law and that receivers should only be subject to suit within their own states. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that allowing receivers to escape liability outside of their home states would create an unjust situation where creditors are unable to recover debts owed them due to jurisdictional issues. He further stated that it is unfair for debtors who have been wronged by these officers or agents of courts in other jurisdictions if they cannot bring suit against them elsewhere because of lack of jurisdiction over those persons or property involved with the transaction at issue. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such suits would provide greater protection for creditors while still preserving judicial authority over its own proceedings and personnel without infringing on any rights granted by Congress or otherwise established through common law principles