The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-10
CLAIMS THE EXCESS.
eaderberg Begins Suit for Sur
plus Paid on Fees.
mn FOR RAILROAD STOCK
u.vns Wants Cash, Though the Roaa
4 on Paper-Chanees I'm Road Dis
trlcts-The New Assessment.
mn FOR RAILROAD STOCK.

ne question Of who has the right 10 sha
~revolus from money paid for fees in fore
~loeqre sales Of mortgaged property. after
ssyment Of the claim. interest, fees and
80 has been brought 70 the test O. a
~ IL thirty-ive different cases, In which
eantuss are made for E.oo4-s4 from the coun-
e a. assigned claims. The overrlus ha.
esen hitherto paid By the sheriff into the
eerrfy treasury, and soderberg claims ~
xould 20 back TO the person who paid 4,
soferberg says in his complaint taxing
"A first case for an example that thu
sterfT sold q certain piece of prop~rtv ON
! foreclosure suit. The court had entered
! decree against the defendant for 81 saf *
4. the time OF the sale there was due
nn45: interest, sie.35: costs. sias5. The
sazintin became the purchaser, bidding
em4fo Soderberg claims that OF this
e5m the purchaser paid the sheriff sI7i N
and was allowed by the sheriff the hal
sace Of the bid. as representing the prin
etaai and interest awarded by the iudr
merit. leaving surplus Of sz975 In money
ever and above the amount of Judgment
interest. costs and expenses of sale and OF
sasf in the hands Of the sheriff. The sher-
II. without right or authority OF law, saw.
eoderberg, paid this overplus to King
esunfy Soderberg bought up this clair,
ara fhirfy-four others against the conptv
ana demanded restitution from the conn
" commissioners, who refused to comply
With HIS request.
Following is list of the claims Sober
bers presented yesterday as a part Of his
dehty-page suit against the county:
r z. Sander VS.. A. L. Grinstead ct al.
rsG
r W. Mcconnaughey VS.. John Krumm
q al. $3.50.
A. J. Johnson vs.. j. w. Range ct al.
1w.
n .. Denny vs.. Rachel r. Marbci ct al.
G.s
West Seattle Land and Improvement.
Company Va. Henry Bailey et al. sif.f0.
Vest Seattle Land and Improvement
Company VS.. Anna Cummings. $50
,. Smith VS.. G. r. Cline eft al, s224D
NJ Reeves vs.. William Bracelet. SO
Abram Barker VS.. +. w. Kerkow. s2g 20
Theresa Blank VS.. John II. Brown ct al.
ls.w
Mary A. Phinney vs.. f. ". woodman Of
a., sG.T5.
". w. Beck vs.. J. II. kirkpatrick. sr7. 70.
CH. $50
r. s. De Wolf VS.. Seattle Finance and
Building Company. szs7.9s.
J. Bedmead Wright VS.. A. w. Hight.
H.e
John Rines vs.. A. W. Hight. sS.f.
Jerome Catlin VS.. John Fountain ct al.
0. s Wright VS.. Laura V. prewett. 81. 80
David Rutiedge VS.. Elizabeth A. Jack
SON. si3o5
Rainier Power & Railway Company VS..
il. A. Smith ct al, $3570
n. u. Chaplin vs. Charlotte t. Wheeler
o. al. sa7. %
Charles N. wisgar vs.. III. J.. Wheeler.
tssS
II. W. Higgins vs.. Nels NJ. Ross ct al.
$50.
". W. Beck VS.. J. r. Kirkpatrick, si4fs.
American Building and Loan Associa-.
ton vs.. o. Erickson ct al, sss.57
Annie Crow VS.. A. j. Aspy x2s 81!
Lucy A. Bull VS.. Matt Brannigan, So &
Sarah l.. Denny VS.. Il. II. Piummer.
txess
A. J. Fonda vs.. J. NJ. Glasgow. 1910.
Sarah j. Piummer vs.. w. T. wadleigh.
AiLN
y u. Chamberiin vs.. C. A. Curtis. sfsD.
Mary Il. Barhineau VS.. James Emrie,
tM@
ID p. Wheeler VS.. Harry Meserve, y4ao.
=. Hilton vs.. Seattle Fuel Company. SIT
Harry krutz vs.. ]. A. Reed ct al, 81 81
Magnificent Is the progress OF Prices
Baking Powder everywhere No other