The Washington times., 1901-10-13
AN IMPORTANT RULING.
Court of Equity Without Jurisdie-
tion to Appoint a Receiver.


Justice Bradley recently rendered an
| important and interesting opinion in the
case of Catherine T. Lynch against NIL
ton r. CrandaIl and his wife, Lena Gran
DAN. involving the question of ownership
to premises No. 80 N Street northwest
! The original proceedings, instituted by
Mrs. Lynch. were for ejectment. and later
she filed a bill in equity, asking for the
| appointment of a receiver to take charge
of the property until the matter was dis
posed of by the court.
| The question came up before Justice
| Bradley on a demurrer to the bill of COM
| plant filed by Mrs. Lynch. and he sus-
tanned the demurrer on the ground that
court of equity has no jurisdiction to
/ interfere by the appointment of receiver
under the circumstances stated in the
complaint.
! 1t appeared that the property men,
| toned formerly belonged to the late Cath
| crime Smith. Mrs. Smith, in her lifetime.
| executed and delivered deed of trust of
the property to secure the payment of
| debt of $500. She died intestate, leaving
Mrs. Crandall, her daughter, in possession
| of the house. Afterward the trustees,
| named in the deed of trust, advertised
| and sold the property at public auction to
CrandalI refused to vacate the premises
upon the ground that the sale was in
valid, and thereupon Mrs Lynch insti-
tuted an action of ejectment against Mrs
Crandall and her husband Milton Gran
dali, for the possession of the property,
which action is still pending.
, \ few months after Mrs. Lynch sued at
law for the possession OF the property
she filed a suit in equity against Mrs.
Crandall and her husband praying for the
appointment of a receiver to take possess
sion of the property, ana to collect the
rents therefrom, and to hold the same
subject to the order of the court This
equity suit was based upon the title which
Mrs. Lynch claimed that she got by the
deed of the trustees, and upon the fur
ther grounds that Mrs. Crandall and her
husband were permitting the property to
go to waste. a further ground for the
appointment of receiver alleged by Mrs.
Lynch was that she would No. be able TO
have n trial of her eSectmei.t suit for
some time, owing to the number of pre-
ceding cases on the trial calendar of the
| law court.
When the equity suit was filed Mrs.
Lynch obtained rule requiring Mrs.
CrandaH and her husband 20 snow cause
why a receiver should not be appointed.
Her application was supported by numer-
GUS affidavits tending &c show the insolv-
enCy of the defendants, and that the prop
erty was going to waste. Mr.. and Mrs.
Crandall Med an answer to this applica-
ton and rule. which answer was also sup
ported by numerous afiidavits whereby it
was shown that the defendants were not
insoIvent and that the property was in
as good, If not better, condition than il
was at the time of the sale to Mrs. Lynch.
Justice Hagner heard the application for
IA receiver, and refused to appoint a re-
ceiver upon the facts presented to him.
The defendants also demurred to the
bill Of complaint of Mrs. Lynch upon the
grounds that a court Of equity has no
jurisdiction whatever to entertain a bill
in which the only relief sought is the ap-
poiHtment of a receiver; that the court
has no Jurisdiction, because Mrs. Lynch
has in theory plain adequate and com
plete remedy at law in her ection of
ejectment, and that, as between Mrs.
Lynch, .he purchaser, and Mrs. Crandall.
the heir at law of the grantor in the deed
of trust under which Mrs. Lynch had ac-
quired her title, Mrs. Crandail was en-
titled to the possession of the property
and the rents and profits thereof as such
until Mrs. Lynch had obtained actual
possession of the premises. or until Mrs.
Crandall had been lawfully dispossessed.
The case was heard by Justice Bradley