parties to this suit, or any of them, and thn,t the proceeds of such sale be applied as follows: (1) To the payment of the taxable costs and disbursements of th6" plaintiff and the plaintiff in the cross-bill, including any unpaid expenses of the receivership; (2) to the payment of the notes 1 and 2 to the plaintiff in the cross-bill,' Henry M. Ahell, with interest at the rate of 10 per centum per annum from date; (3) to the payment to the plaintiff, vVilliam H. Gest, of the sum of $18,151.34, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from the date of the filing of the bill herein, the same being the amount paid by Gest's predecessors in interest on notes 3, 4, 5, 15, and 16, in Schedule B of the agreement of 1874, and made and delivered in pursuance of the agreement of 1873; and (4) to the payment of the sum due the defendant Grover on the note and mortgage assigned to him by C. M. Carter, and the remainder of the notes in Schedule B, and not otherwise herein provided for, in equal parts; provided that note 6 in said schedule, payable to J. \V. Virtue, on October 23, 1873, for $2,200, be first paid to the plaintiff, Gest, with interest from November 2, 1878, out of said proceeds, equally with said note and mortgage. The surplus of $8,671.87 is hereby first applied on notes 4 and 5 in said schedule as of the respective years in which it accrued, and the remainder on the notes in said schedule not herein specially named and otherwise provided for, as therein numbered, and for all the exigencies of this suit, and the distribution of the proceeds of the sale herein, this surplus shall be taken and deemed to have been duly applied as herein directed, when and as it accrued.
(Circuit Court, N. D. illinois.
QUIETING TITLE-FRAUDULENT JUDGME:!'OT AT LAW.
A bill in equity to establish a title acquired by purchase at an execution sale under a judgment by default in complainant's favor will not be entertained where the proof shows that the debt on which the judgment was obtained had been fully paid before the commencement of the action.
It is an additional reason for dismissing such a bill that the execution, which was for but U,OOO, was levied upon two separate parcels of land, worth in the aggregate $25,000, and both parcels sold together and bid in by complainant for the amount of the judgment.
SAME-UNCONSCIONABLE SALE UNDER EXEClITION.
In Equity. Bill to remove cloud from title. ter's report. E. A. Sherbw'ne, for complainant. P. Me Hngh, for defendants.
On exceptions to mas-
BURT t1·. COLLINS.
BLODGETT,J., (orally.) In this case the master has filed a, report find. ing that the complainant's bill is not supported by the proof, and that it should be dismissed for want of equity. The complainant has filed exceptions to the master's findings, and these exceptions have been argued at length in a brief filed in behalf of complainant. Without discussing at length the proofs in the case, I will briefly say that an exam· ination of the proof satisfies me with the findings of the master. The master has traveled over an unnecessary area of ground in coming to his conclusions, but he finds that the proof on the part of the complainant, inasmuch as the complainant has the burden of proof, is not sufficient to entitle the complainant to the relief prayed for, and recommends that the bill be dismissed. I am of opinion that other reasons might be urged in support of the master's findings aside from those he has discussed in his report. The bill is for removing what the complainant calls a cloud upon his title to certain real estate in this city,-two separate pieces,-the title of the complainant having been acquired by the issue of a writ of attachment against the defendant Thomas F. Collins, ,as a non-resident of Illinois, to collect the sum of about $905, alleged to be due and owing from said Thomas F. Collins to the complainant. The attachment was levied upon these two pieces of real estate, and with no personal service of process, and no appearance in the case on the part -of the defendant Collins, jurisdiction was obtained by the publication of notice pursuant to the attachment laws of Illinois, and judgment taken by default, and an order for a special execution for the sale of the property levied upon. At the sale under this execution complainant became the purchaser, and now seeks to obtain a decree that the title to this property, which is in the name of the defendant Mrs. Collins, was held by her solely in trust for her husband at the time of such levy and sale, and that her husband, the defendant Thomas F. Collins, was at the time of such levy, judgment, and sale the real and equitable owner of said property. The testimony in the case shows some very questionable transactions between Collins and the complainant in regard to dealings in certain gas company bonds; that out of such dealings grew the issue to the complainant of a due-bill for $905, upon which the attachment suit was brought. The answer denies that there was anything due complainant on this due-bill at the time this attachment suit was brought, and a clear preponderance of the proof, I think, supports this denial; as two witnesses testify to the full payment of this due-bill, and complainant alone testifies that it is unpaid. I take it that the law is well settled that no one who is not an actual and bonn fide creditor can have relief in a court of equity in a case like this. There must be an actual, valid iudebtedness as the foundation of an attachment proceeding like the one in question to give the plaintiff a standing in a court of equity to ask for a perfection of his title acquired hy such attachment. With a note or due-bill in his hands he might impose upon a court of law by the production of his evidence of debt as the foundation of his attachment suit, and obtain a judgment there; but
when be seeks for relief in a court of equity he must come in with clean hands and an honest case, which I think the testimony shows this complainant has not. Secondly. He sold in satisfaction of the judgment, which amounted to a little over $1,000, including interest and costs, two separate pieces of property in different parts of the city, with no relation to each other, one worth $15,000 and the other $10,000, as the proof shows; thus acquiring, if Thomas F. Collins was the real owner, $25,000 worth of property to satisfy an indebtedness of barely $1,000. The two properties were certainly divisible, and perhaps each one of them was also susceptible of further division, and the attempt of the complainant to obtain title to so large an amount of property for so small a consideration seems to me so unconscionable a proceeding as to merit no aid from a court of equity. For these reasons the exceptions to the muster's report are overruled, the report confirmed, and the bill dismissed for want of equity.
UNITED STATES "'. HUTCHESON
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. Georgia, E. D. February 4, 1889.)
POST-OFFICE·-POSTMASTER-ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNT.
Where the quarterly returns of a postmaster, in which a:re reported receipts for sale of stamps, etc., and amount of commission claimed for cancellation of stamps, have been regularly rendered to the department, and have been passed upon by the auditor, and the balances therein found to be due the go vernrnent have been each quarter carried into a general account, herd, that such action by the auditor is a complete allowance of the commissions claimed, and adjustment of such quarterly returns.
''''here the credits on the general account kept by the auditor against the postmaster, and made up as above stated, show that the postmaster has fully paid all balances so charged, so that a complete balance could be strnck upon such general account, held, that in such case there is a complete settlement of the account, and that thereafter the commissions covered by such adjnsted acconnts were not within the power of allowance by the postmaster general so as to give him the right to "withhold" the same within the meaning of the act of congress of June 17, 1878, (20 St. at Large 140.) There was nothing to "withhold. "
SAME-BALANCE SrrOWN-PRUIA FACIE EVIDENCE.
If the postmaster general, in the exercise of the power conferred upon him by the act of June 17, 1878, before the allowance of credit for commissions is made, directs that it shall not be made, aud it is not made, but in lieu thereof credit is given on the account kept with the postmaster for the amount of the allowance deemed reaiiOnable by the postmaster general, the balance shown due the government by such an account would be v-rirna facie sufficient, but not conclusive evidence against the postmaster. .
Where an account of a postmaster, regular on its face, has been anjusted and allowed by the proper accounting officers, and fully paid, such officers cannot, after the term of office of the postmaster has expired, evolve ex parte a balance ill favor of the government, founded solely upon a general and vague al·