Case ID: wash_21/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 3465.
    Decided December 4, 1899.]
    The State of Washington on the Relation of Irvine Baruch v. William Hickman Moore, Judge of the Superior Court of King County.
    
    WRIT OF ASSISTANCE — RIGHTS OF RECEIVER.
    The fact that a party applying for a writ of assistance does so> in his capacity as a receiver would not entitle him to the writ, if any other citizen, under the same circumstances, could not legally obtain it.
    
      Original Application for Prohibition.
    
    
      Preston, Carr & Gilman, for relator.
    
      S. M. Shipley and J. C. Whitlock, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We are unable to distinguish this case from the case of State ex rel. Hartman v. Superior Court of Thurston County, decided October 3, 1899 (ante, p. 469). It mates no difference in principle that the party seeking the writ of assistance in this ease was a receiver. A receiver cannot litigate the independent rights, of individuals under other or different provisions of the law from those invoked by any other citizen.

The writ will issue as prayed for.