, 1892-05-28
JUDGEMENT FUND.
An Appeal From Jefferson County
Passed Upon.

1t Appearing That the ReIatOrs
Having no Adequate or Suffi-
client Remedy, a Temporary One
is Ordered to BE Issued.
TNotice-Au decisions of the supreme
court will appear in THE DAILY and WEEK
LY TRIBUNE
State ex rel. Schloss, Ochs & Co. ct al, re-
lators, VS. Superior Court of Jefferson
County ct al, respondents. No. 457.
1t appears from the petition OF the rela-
tors, and accompanying affidavit, that the
REALTORS were judgment creditors of B.
Levy claiming attachment and execution
liens on $1.536.70, proceeds of sale OF the
properly of the said B. Levy, by receiver
appointed by the court to take possession
of said property. That the said sum of
S1,536.70 had been turned into the registry
of the court, and the receiver discharged.
That there we're not sufficient funds to pay
all the judgments against said B. Levy and
that these relatOrs and other plaintiffs on
the 21st day of November, 1891, appeared
in said receivership proceeding, and by
petition to said superior court asked for
distribution of the said funds, and with
said petition filed an agreed statement of
facts by which the court could determine
the priority of the liens. That after con-
sideratiOn of said petition and statement,
said court on December 7th, 1891, duly rem
hOlOu JuuSAlG1l1 ny 'WnlGu IL was OluClCQ
and adjrdged by the court that said fund
be applied (D to the payment of TOote,
Hosea 81 Co., in the sum of $234.G);
(2) that a payment of the judgment
of the State tank of Washington in the
sum of $1011.33 and COSTS and that the bal
ance Of said fund be paid on the judgment
of Joseph levy. That by the term of said
Judgment there was nothing LETT to apply
on the respective judgments of these re-
latOrs. This Judgment and order these re-
latOrs duly excepted to, which exceptions
were allowed, and the relators thereupon
in open court gave notice Of appeal. That
thereafter on DecemDe- 9Th, l'9l, the re-
latoTs filed with the clerk of said superior
court an undertaking for costs on appeal
in the sum prescribed by law, and for stay
of proceedings on SAID Judgment and order
in the sum of $1,000, that being the amount
fixed by said judge for said bond, and that
the said bond was duly approved by the
clerk Of court. That notwithstanding said
appeal the said State Bank of Washington
orally applied to the said judge, Morris B.
Sachs, for execution of the said judgment
appealed from by the payment to the said
bank of the amount so ordered to be paid
TO it, That upon being informed thereof,
one of the TelatOr's attorneys appeared be-
fore said judge and objected to the cOnsid-
Grafton OF any question relation thereto,
and to the execution of said Judgment, be-
cause said superior court had no lurlsdlc-
IlOu bubLGOI, OF OI bdlu luuus anu GI6 bdlu
Judge announced that he would take cog
nizance Of, and consider said application,
notwithstanding the appeal of relators to
the supreme court, ana that he threatened
to proceed under the application of said
bank, and to enforce salu order appealed
from, and to disburse said fund Hereunder.
Thereafter it appearing to this court
that the petitioners had no speedy, adequate
or sufficient means Of redress and that
the appeal would be rendered useless if the
said Judge in advance of the decision of
this court disbursed the said funds, this
court did OH the 11th day ofJanuary, 1852, is
sue 10 said Morris g. Sachs, Judge of the
superior court of Jefferson county, an al
tentative writ of prohibition p.Ohibiting
him from interfering with said fund, and
citing him to show cause to this court why
this writ should not be made perpetual.
To this writ the said Morris B. Sachs, judge
aforesaid has made the following return.
After admitting the judgment the answer
proceeds as follows:
20. He admits that oral application was
made to him for payment to the State
Bank of Washington Oh the amount awarded
to it, under the aforesaid Judgment, and
that the attorneys aforesaid for said bank
proposed to show to the court that no ap
peal had been perfected by the said SchlOss,
Ochs q Co., Jordan & Ferguson, Denziger
Bros. and Kahn Bros. & 90. by the filing
of proper bonds, and your respondent
stated that on ming the proper Application
he would consider it. and that attorneys
for petitioners, when notified of the oral
application and appeared and orally oil
jected to the hearing of the application.
He denies that at that time, or at any
time since then, he has threatened to pay
the said judgment of the State Bank of
Washington VS. BENJAMIN LeVey, out of
the funds in the registry of this court so as
to defeat the appellate jurisdiction of this
court, and says that he holds the law to be,
that the judgment of the superior court
could be enforced unless the proper bond
had been filed for stay of proceedings, and
upon proper application presenting that
point, it was his duty to consider it.
He denies that at that time, or since that
date, be has threatened to pay said money
out of the registry of his conrt, in case
that he would do more than consider the
application"
ITO be continued.