The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-01-08

u & ..
Eavwzrd commonly known as the Port
( NaGisan -sIIl sale. ard also as 70 the FAR
fs5fctscn 81 the courf 20 issue en- or6er Of
4 eonnrrnat ton Of the sale os the personal
property involved. The banking cornpsny
was ths bidder az the sale the bids
amounting &c SIS 1915. Marshal Qufter
charged his usual fees but the plaintiff
thought they were excessive. and object
s1. at tie sane time moving that tasy Be
rstaxed The defendant sayward. object
ed 70 the confirmation on the ground ihat
tire tug Favorite. which was sold along
with the balance CT the property was not
included il THE property - be sold The
court in passing On rEess questions says:
Upon an execution issued 70 satisfy
the Judgment in favor or Dexter Horton
& Co, a banking corporation. property OF
ths defendant both real and personal. pre-
<i9Us.E he'd under ~rIfs OF attachment.
Hss sold sy the marshal. for sums aggre-
eating SIS, 7Es.ss. a large part Of wA.4cn vas
sS{s 20 tae psaintin, there being no otaer
bidder. IN cue time. after the uarshaFs
return. the defendant -llef objections =
confirmation OF tire sa.eS. on several
grounds. bat upon tle argument al abiec-
ttgns were expressly waived save one sn=-
chic objection TO confirmation OF the sale
OF tl}e steam tug fayQrite. which objection
IS upon ths ground taat said steamer was
not 81 the time Ct the sale the property II
the defendant nor in the CUSTODY OF the
marshal. nor subject 20 sale under the
r
removal ot0his cause into this coart from
the superior court OF the state % Washing
ton, in whlch il Was commenced the sher-
IL OF kitsap county BY virtue % a Writ
Of attachment in This case made a levy
upon the steamer Favorite and other
property. and before the property held IN
der Attachment rad been transferred .
the custody OF the marshal. a libel IN rem
against said steamer was fled IN the init
ed States district court for this district
and by virtue % the process issued there
IN - -r1.@ -&a
tody. and she was afterwards released up
on stipulation, according to the practice
IN admiralty. OF which proceedings the
parties 20 this action. and the sheriff, had
fun knowledge. Thereafter other proceed
+ ings in rem were commenced and prose-
cuted in the district court against the
steamer. and she was finally sold under a
Ysndittont exponas. by which sale IL II
contended the purchaser obtained a clear
title 10 the vessel clear OF all liens
1T Is manifestly the purpose Of the party
making the objection TO iitigafe In sum
mary fashion the questions OF title. al
though the purchaser at the sale under the
ven ex- has not been made party to
this action. nor come within the jurisdie
ton Of this court, so as to be concluded
by the Judgment OF this court ~ II shall
be adverse TO ht,n. The plaintiff. in an
swer to the objections. says that the vessel
was sold IS personal property. and imme-
fiateiy delivered into the possession OF the
purchaser and that there Is no law. or rule
OF practice, requiring or authorizing ac-
&
sonal property by the marsnai under final
process. So ! have before me the de-
fendant on one hand. denying the 1urts-
dictton OF the court 10 issue process for tha
sale OF this vessel: and on the other hand
the plaintiff denying the jurisdiction OF
The court 10 confirm or refuse continuation
OF the sale which the< ma rShal has made.
Under these circumstances 1t seems clear
10 me that the court is not called upon TO
EXPRESS any opinion as 70 the validity OF
either one OF the sales OF the steamer made
2
proceeding can be effective 10 settle the
disputed questions, or prevent future It'll
gatlon involving the same qusstions-
Therefore an order VIII be entered con-
frmng the marshal's sale OF real estate,
and the purchasers viii be left 20 defend
such rights as they may have acquired TO
the personal property without en- order OF
connTma ton.
Upon the motion to retax the marshars
fees end costs. the question Is raised
whether the marshal IS entitled 10 a per-
centage upon the whole amount Of plain
fiff's bid for the property, or only q per
centage upon the amount OF cash actually
paid into his hands by purchasers at the
sale. or whether the marshal Is entitled to
any percentage In cases where property
l. sold under final process to the Judgment
creditor.
sec so. r. s. allows TO the marshal
besides mileage. on any final process, for
making the service. leVYfng on property.
advertising and disDoslng Of the same by
sale. set-off. or otherwise according 70
( law receiving and paying over the money.
the same fees and pourdage 81 are or
shall be allowed for similar services 20
the sherins of the states. respectively, In
which the service is rendered. This in ef-
: feet adopts the law OF this state, as the
rule on the subject Of compensation 20 an
officer executing final process upon n
/ Questions submitted must be decided in
/ accordance with the laws Of this state.
/ except as changed or modified by other
laws enacted by congress.
sec. 3.0l7. ! Hlfs Code, allows the sher
/ III percentage on ali moneys actually
( made. and paid TO the sheriff on execution
/ or order OF sale. under s. COO. . per centum.
+ Percentage on all sums over si.ooo. ! PER
centum-' In the case Of the state ex. rel.
I Thompson vs.. Prince, Wash. i07. the SUI
prer1e court OF this state has definitely de-
clded that under section 20i7 a sheriff is
not entitled TO a commission upon the sale
where the property IL bid in by the plain
I tiff for the amount - his debt. and no
money actually passes through the sher-
{ IFS hands. And in that case &c was con-
tended that II percentage az above provfd-
ed could not be charged. then BY section
2ez7. which allows 70 each and every officer
who shall be- called on or required TO per-
( form services for which nc fees or ON
pensation are provided fer in this charter
shall ba allowed fees similar and equal 10
those allowed him for services OF the ga me
kind for which allowance Is made herein. >
and upon this point the opinion OF the
% vas intended - paw for crying the
sale bat IL such were the purpose n Is
likely the legislature would have provided
a specific sum. for that service ia the same
+ whether the property calls for one dollar
Or sixty thousand dollars on the other
hand. II q Is % pay for the responsibility
incurred IN receiving ard returning the
money IL Is an ant provision requiring
payment 81 proportion - the risk Imnps-
ed II ft was 80 intended section 8 -
would not Re appac2tie. for the naoneE not
having been actually made and paid no
service was rendered 20 which Il could
apply.
's-rae above decision. declaring ths law %
TITS state must be acc@Eted without que=-
sion tn this court. = is q harmony with
marshal Is entitled &c Ga perceutaRs on the
mount o. money WasCh be received on
s~@1-nf % the sale and which no has re-
turned trfa court. in addition - the other
fees Tor making the levy. posting notices
exc. allowed Is TIE GODS. Under the pro-
visions CT tns appropriation hlf for the
yEsr ir walcA the sale was made tie mar
s1ai Cor iris district lE allowed tbs same
fees and com per satto0- as the marshal for
gre district ~ oregon and Idaho. ana ny
section So r 8 the marshal FOR IRE dis
frt-t ee Oregon = aH'w "a % ~ sciwa dau-
bic re fees prov ie6 hY section - TIE
intent - thls iaw IS - tx IRE fees and
corporation - re marshal 40 double
WHAT would cthe-wtse be coming - hsm
according ~ section 80 he = .nsrefo-z
EMITTED ic receive Ter executing tha susl
process n this case. ne Ea a. tie rate II
= cents per nile. Tor making the levy. for
COMES Of thA notices. process etc neees-
sarv % e1nu}sts SER 60 double fhs faes
allowed BY t5s code ard percentage OF
Ehe amount - s. 5fsl PAID 20 him On zCeount
O. c1e safe and returned irtc court a. tne
rate ~ 9 ger cent ard ner cent on tie
weueY 40 paid in over ard above TIE Nrst
s, aa sn3 tne allowance Cor keeper As
. heretofore ordered