In point of fact, a reading of the minutes of the first hearing, that of September 12, indicates that the appellants, far from disputing the presence of a nuisance, acquiesced in the respondent’s charge that innumerable dangerous conditions existed on the premises warranting the appointment of a receiver. In short, it was assumed by all that the building was in an exceedingly hazardous state and that the owner should be given an opportunity to remedy the situation. The only question argued and considered was whether the motion should be adjourned for 30 days or whether it should be granted and the appointment of a receiver stayed for such a period. The court decided on the latter procedure; it granted the motion but put off appointment of a receiver for more than 30 days in order to give the owner a chance to eliminate the dangerous conditions and thereby render the appointment unnecessary. However, when it appeared on November 20, to which date the proceeding had been further adjourned from October 16, that those conditions had not been completely removed and that considerable work still remained to be done — and, certainly, there was basis in the record for such a finding—the court, following the command of the statute (subd. 5, par. c, cl. 3), signed the order appointing the Commissioner of Real Estate as receiver.