The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-25
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS
Supreme CoIrt-Feb. ~.
Hon. Geo. V. Howk. Chief Justice.
SUING REcEIvERs-LEAvE OF COURT

1855. Geo. w. Keen Samuel Z. Breckenridge,
receiver. Dearborn G. C.
Colerick, C-In the absence of statutory authority
receiver neither nor be sued without leave of
the court by which he appointed, and where the
purpose of the action is to reach disturb the prop
ery in the possession of the receiver the complaint
will be bad demurrer unless it that leave to
40 Ind, 42S; II i'd, COL; % How. Pr, 10; 1Ol
U. s.. 1853 Judgment affirmed.
CHURCH DEBTs-EvIDENCE.
1904. Henry McCrary ct al vs. Charlotte McFar
land Vanderburg S. c.
Bicl,nell, c. C.-Appellee who was the widow of Il
Baptist minister, sued the trustees of the church to
recover money due him salary. 1t appeared that
the church owed Mcfarland $500 and he agreed to
forgive the debt if the church would pay Mrs Holden
a debt of $50, which Mcfarland owed her This was
not done, and the officers of the church agreed
in writing to pay appellee the $3.50 due her
husband There was no error in excluding
proof of the usage and custom of Baptist
churches in the creation of debts. toHit: that the
trustees and deacons have no authority to bind the
church for debt without first submitting the same to
vote of the church. The debt here not created
by the action of the trustees but existed long before
the written acknowledgment of it by the trustees
Besides, the powers of such trustees are given by
statute and customs and usages in conflict with PLAIN
well-eStabished rules of law cannot be upheld "a
Ind, 369; 33 i'd, 529) Judgment affirmed
TAX NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1925. Mary F. Lancaster ct al Caleb S. Du
Hardy. Wayne O. C.
Best, C.-Complant for the cancellation of tax
certificate and to enoin the auditor from executing
deed the purchaser 1t was alleged that the amount
due had been rendered and refused but there no
allegation that the money brought into court for
the purchaser. This omission is fatal to the com
plant. The application is for equitable relief and
court of equity will not extend its aid to who does
not do equity. (25 Ind, 1877 GA i'd, 36Ol The
relief granted without requiring its payment
the court would deprive the purchaser of his only
lection by DESTROYING the uniments of his title while
the money due him remains unpaid. 1t is mmaterial
whether the complaint is regarded bill to redeem
to cancel the certificate and enon the execution of
In 9th he ANA la Is in
volved, and the same rules control t37 Mich, 1881
Ii the purchaser attempting to enforce his claim
answer of tender and refusal would bar his claim
as such tender and refusal would dlvest his len and
in this operate redemption of the property
az Mich. 370i Wis, 402; 43 Me-, 200, Fl N. Y,
1861 Judgment affirmed.
JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD-EvIDENcE-
COPY OF LETTER.
1OO63. Colestine Duringer VS.. Nicholas Moschino.
Jennings @. G.
Black, C.-AetiOn by, appellant on Judgment rem:
dered apains appellee by the Common Pleas Court of
Hamilton county, Ohio Answer, that the judgment
obtained by fraud in this that while the suit
pending, appellee went to Cincinnati,
and he and appellant had
tual settlement of all matters involved
in the suit and appellant thereupon agreed to dismiss
his suit and by such promise induced appellee not to
appear and answer his complaint; that aferward ap
peant wrote appellee that he had dismissed the suit
and appellee gave more attention to it. Although
there fraud shown in obtaining jurisdiction of
the person of appellee, the equitable defense of the
procurement of the Judgment by fraud was well
pleaded. az Ind, 374i "a i'd, $780, Freeman Judg,
section 500 III 1t was agreed in open court that
the appellee would produce all letters of appellant
which he might have bearing the case. Appellant
offered in evidence COPY of letter to the appellee
first having testified that he mailed il in an enveope
addressed to appellee with appellants return card
it, and that the letter was never returned to him The
letter was contradictory of the testimony of appellee
to the contents of the letter received by him from
appellant There a sufficient foundation laid for
the introduction of the copy in eyeence and the court
erred in excluding it. (Whart Ev section 154 and
note.) Judgment reversed