The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-17
IT WAS IN RESERVE.
One Rams Horn Injunction
Killed, New One Served.
colMAk's APPLICATION FAILS.


the rams horn tracks deveicred another
su'prlse yesterday. thus keeping up Is
record for Kaleidoscope changes In tbs
pcsiiions OF the parties 70 It. Judge Lang.
ley vacated the Injunction against the
tearing down Of the Co.nan building and
the work Of demolition was lust about 10
begin when another injunction obtained
two days before in ths United States eour.
ey the German Savings and L can Society.
OF san Francisco. which holds . mortgage
ca the building aud lot from ]. NJ. Col.
man. vas served Just In tine 20 prevent
.hs IFst blow from being struck by the
ranroAd forces This win give the threat
ehed building another respite for ten days.
nnisss the railroad companies can induce
Judge Hanfort 70 give an carrier hearing,
the case being Get for February %.
The decision of Jadgs Langley was rem
dered on the opening Of court yesterday
morning AID Ia strongly In favor OF the
railroads.. IL reads NJ follows:
he court is asked to restrain and en-
JOIN the defendants from projecting rail-
ray over portion Of block l. Of c. C.
leFry's third addition TO Seattle. between
Coinnbis and Marion streets, al . point
where thsy now threaten 20 entsr upon
SAID property. Plaintiffs claim 10 relief
is based on the alleged ground that the
DEFENDANTS are estopped by their own acts
IN the past from now asserting any right
possess ana use the particular strip on
part OF said block In controversy.
Deiendants, answering the complaint,
deny plaintiffs supposed right. and If.
Lrmafivsiy aver that all the matters and
things set forth by the plaintiffs were
fui.y heard and adjudicated before one Of
me departments Of this court in IN action
between tho same parties relating to the
same subject matter. wherein the issues
we're found AID determined against the
plaintiffs, which affirmative statement in
denied by PLAINTIFF reply. A broad lasi-
tade was allowed for proofs and argument,
and 30 FAR as these involved INQUIRY into
or comment on former litigation the rec
ord: OF such proceedings were literally
used
III the matters set forth in paragraph
ten OF piaintitfs' complaint constitutes .
cause OF action At all, then such cause has
existed ever since the arranremsnts
therein detailed were contaminated. and
should at once have been Incorporated in
the pisadsugs Of the case to the end that
all the rights of the litigatine parties
growing out Of the same transaction, or
relating to the same subject matter, might
De heard IT the same time and in one ac-
ton. IL - tho policy OF the Law to unite
all triabIs causes of action bstween the
same parties in one action. Our code sys-
TEN II. based upon this theory and IL the
law Of the land On that subject, and IL
provides ample means to this end. Any
other view would permit plaintiff to sd-
vance his action to trial on ono or more
assigned causes, holding all others in
allegiance until he has tested the INSULT
cheney OF the former. and thsn advance tor
q further like experiment an additional
cause, and by this means repeat and pro-
tract litigation indefinitely.
II sec no good reason why the supposed
sssoppel set forth in paragraph ten was
not pleaded in the original cause. by way
oil supplemental complaint, soon after It
occurred. A fair inference would be that
the plaintiffs waived that right, or hoped
70 avail themselves at the trial of the
proofs to support an estoppsI without epe-
ciaiiy PLEADING IL. A search Of the record
shows that they did offer proof tending TO
support the same estoppsl they now set up
- cause Of action. and the court heard
such proofs and considered them in its
findings OF fact and conclusions of Law and
In passing It's decree, to the same extent it
could have done had the supposed estop-
pei been pleaded In the most technical
manner known to the pleader's art.
II do not think the plaintiffs can now
be heard to say their rights in this behalf
were not adjudicated at the former hear
that the court permitted them to prove
more than they plead. To grant an in
junction TO allow the plaintiff to get up
now a supposed new cause of action
though once available in former suit
would practically nullify the decree re-
Gently rendered by q coordinate branch of
the superior court and carry the doctrine
OF inJunctive relief to en- unwarfantable
degree. The motion for an injunction il
denied"
A gang Of laborers was ell ready to be-
gin work on the scene of operations as
soon As the decision was rendered. and a
messenger was sent down notifying Super
.ntendent Kline that the legal obstacle.
were removed. Cars were run across
Columbia street. ladders placed sgainst
the wall of the building and q scaling
party, armed with saws aud axes, climbed
nimeIy to the roof. They were just about
to make the FIRST cut with the saw and the
first hack with the az when o deputy mar
sha. came down aud served notice of the
injunction on II. Middaugh, the superin-
tcndent of bridges, who was in charge of
the work. The forces were called of and
the building got another frsil lease of
life.
Judge Hsnford's order summons the
Columbia & Paget Sound. Puget Sound
saore, Northern Pacific d Puget Sound
Railroad companies and the Oregon 4
Transconsinenial Company to appear In
court OF 10 o'clock on the morning of Feb
ruary q. when the plaintiff will move on
the DILL of complaint and the aftiday.ts of
Lawrence ]. Coiman. for an injunction.
restraining them or their agents fron en-.
tsring upon or destroying the buildings
and from constructing . railroad on the
premises.
The complaint states that for over fifteen
years James u. Coiman and bis wife have
been and now are owners of the land
bounded by Front. Column bia, Marion street
and Puget sonnd. including the alleged
rlght-os-way; that prior 10 October ). lsss.
they were IN actual and undisputed EOS
session Of the property, aud on that day
borrowed from the plaintiff, the German
Savings and Lean Society, sis. 900 for Il We
years, With interest q per cent. payabis
quarterly. for which they gave . mortgage
On the block in dispute with the buildings
upon il. with the pEoylso that ia case the
interest was net paid within ten days after
any payment became due, the whole Of tie
princips! asd interest should then De due.
and that in case of foreclosure proceedings
a receiver should be appointed and should
Apply the rents on the debt
o. February 10. 1891, Colman borrowed
&no;hes sc, 600 from tie plaintiffs on the
same te.ms. he erected . txo-stcry and
basement brick and stone building on the
Front street. half Of the block and row Of
corrugated iron aaa frame buildings on
the West street half. and insured them for
s.ga 600 and sis GO rezrertsyely fgf 80
ten stores en- the frat foor o. the iron