Otis et al. v. Cullum, Receiver was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 mortgagors, Otis et al., who argued that the receiver did not have the authority to sell the mortgaged property without their consent. The Supreme Court held that the receiver did have the power to sell the mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagors. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed by the court of equity to protect the interests of all parties involved in the mortgage, and that the receiver had the authority to sell the mortgaged property in order to protect the interests of the creditors. The Court also noted that the mortgagors had the right to challenge the sale in court if they felt that it was not in their best interests. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the receiver had the power to sell the mortgaged property without the consent of the mortgagors. The Court reasoned that the receiver was appointed by the court of equity to protect the interests of all parties involved in the mortgage, and that the receiver had the authority to sell the mortgaged property in order to protect the interests of the creditors. The Court also noted that the mortgagors had the right to challenge the sale in court if they felt that it was not in their best interests.

In Otis et al. v. Cullum, Receiver, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a receiver appointed by a court of equity had authority to sell mortgaged property without obtaining permission from the mortgagee or giving notice to them first. The majority opinion held that such action was permissible under certain circumstances and did not require either permission or notification beforehand. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would be unfair for receivers to have such broad powers over mortgaged property without any obligation whatsoever towards those who hold mortgages on it. He argued that if receivers were allowed unfettered discretion in these matters then they could easily take advantage of their position and act against the interests of mortgagees with impunity since there would be no way for them to challenge any decisions made by receivers regarding their properties. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such actions without prior consent or notification could lead to great injustice as many people may not even know when their rights are being violated until after it is too late for them do anything about it