Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Ind. 119

Newman v. Hammond

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1874

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1874-05-15

<p>Receiver.—Appointment cf—A judge has no power to appoint a receiver during vacation, nor has a clerk any power to approve a receiver’s bond in vacation.</p> <p>Court.—Power of in Term Time and Vacation.—Where a law authorizes or contemplates the doing of an act by a court, it is and must be understood that the court in term time may or must do it, and the judge in vacation cannot, unless the power is expressly conferred upon him by law.</p>

Relies on Ferger v. Wesler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1914

12 state decisions

5018741880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pettit, J.

¶1This suit was brought by Phillip D. Hammond, receiver of the Home Insurance Company of Lafayette, Ind., against the appellant, John W. Newman, on a note given for a policy of insurance, and made payable to the company.

¶2There was a demurrer to the complaint for these causes:

¶3“ 1. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

¶4“2. Because there is a defect of parties plaintiffs.”

¶5The demurrer was overruled, exception taken, and this *120ruling is assigned for error. We hold that this ruling was error, for which the judgment must be reversed. The complaint shows that the receiver was appointed by the judge in vacation, and not by the court. The receiver’s bond was taken and approved by the clerk in vacation, and not by the court. Both of these acts are required by our statute to be done by the court, but not by the judge or clerk in vacation. 2 G. & H. 151, 153, secs. 199 and 201. Where a law authorizes or contemplates the doing of an act by a court, it is and must be understood that the court in term time may or must do it, and the judge in vacation cannot, unless the power is expressly conferred upon him by law. Ferger v. Wesler, 35 Ind. 53.

¶6There is no law in this State authorizing the judge to appoint a receiver, or the clerk to take and approve his bond in vacation, hence the appointment was void, and the receiver had no legal right to maintain the suit. The court ought to have sustained the demurrer to the complaint, which would have ended the case; hence there are no other questions in the record.

¶7The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellee, with, instructions to the court below to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

/46/ind/119 · .json · Public domain