Q90 aL^^ INDEX.

ss"^-9y.
RECEI^|prCff»l(tTO(e(;.

wTOents and profits were in danger of being lost, the court refused to
appoint a receiver. /&„

5. The court interposes, by appointing a receiver, against the legal title
with reluctance, and fraud or imminent danger, if the intermediate
possession should not be taken by the court, must be clearly proved.
Thompson vs. Diffenderfer, 489.

6. Though the court will not, by the appointment of a receiver, deprive a
prior mortgagee, having the legal title, of his right of possession, it
will not object to such appointment by any act short of a personal as-
sertion of his legal right, and taking possession himself. Ib.

7. The power of appointing a receiver is a delicate one, and to be exer-
cised with prudence and circumspection, yet, upon a sufficient cause
stated and proved, the court will exercise the power, though by so do-
ing, the business of the defendants, as merchants, would be broken
up. Ib.
RECORDING OF DEEDS.

The act of 1785, ch. 72, sec. 11, authorizes the court to direct a deed to be
recorded, but with a limitation that it shall not effect the rights of
creditors, becoming such after the execution of the deed. frocks vs.
Dmt, 523.
^MEDIAL LAWS.

See CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES, 1.
REMEDY AT LAW.
- See JURISDICTION, 1, 2, 13.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 7.
RENTS AND PROFITS.
See DOWER, 5 to 7.

ELECTION, 2.
RES ADJUDICATA.

1. The plaintiff having sued at law for rents and profits of lands, as dam-
ages for the detention of dower, and having failed to recover them
there, the question as to them must be regarded as res adjudicata.
They cannot form the subject of a new litigation, the judgment at law
having foreclosed the plaintiff, Kiddall vs. Trimble, 143.
RESOLUTIONS OF CORPORATIONS.

See AGENT, 2.
RESULTING TRUST.

1. Where the consideration for a conveyance is paid by one, not a party
to the instrument, there is a resulting trust in his favor, a trust im-
plied by law, from the presumed intention of the parties, and the ob-
vious justice of the case, which maybe proved by parol, being except-
ed from the statute of frauds. Hollis vs. Hollis, 479.

2. If it could be proved that land was purchased with the wife's money,
then, as between her and the heirs at law, or volunteers claiming un-
der her husbana, a trust would result to her, being implied by law
from the intention of the parties and the justieie of the case, and which