The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-15
CARS SEIZED BY MOYER.
Twenty-six Owned by the Bur-
lington Garnisheed.
FOR THE CLAIM OF A BANK.
A Case That Is View in the History OF
Legislation I'm Washington - n
Question Whether the Property
of Interstate Carriers Can Be
Levied Upon in Thf. way-ShingIe
shippers strenuousIy Object

Sheriff Meyer stands in a fair way 10
get into the railroad business. Twenty
six freight cars, part Of tham loaded Iah
of lumber and shingles. the product OK
Western Washington mills, have been
garnisheed by the Washington National
hank. and will probably be placed in the
sheriff-s custody today.
Several weeks ago as told in the Posi-
Intelugencer, the Washington National
bank brought ten suits against the Chi
cago. Burlington & quincy and the Chi
cago. Burlington & Northern railroad
companies for g.. SEQ. alleged TO be due by
reason OF failure on the part of the COM
panies 10 deliver the shingles 10 the par
ties TO which they were consigned. The
bank held the bills OF lading.
In order TO make good its claim against
the railroads named, which form part or
the Burlington system. the bank has at
tached twenty-six box cars belonging 10
the railroads, in the possession OF the Sc
attic & international railway. Ten OF
these cars are now loaded with shingles
and lumber, but not a wheel can be moved
until the process of the court is removed.
The cars are situated at various points
along the line of the Seattle * Interna-
tional They had been sent to Washlng-
tan to be loaded with lumber and shingles.
which are just now in great demand
throughout the East and Middle West.
1t is fair presumption that part of the
cars were to be routed over the Burling-
ton.
The action of the bank in attaching the
cars has occas.oned something of "A KICK
on the part of the shingle shippers. as
tie supply of cars for lumber ard shingle
shipments mas Tot been at all adequate 10
the demand. But If the shippers have
objected, 1t is but a circumstance 10 that
raised by the Burlington people.
The present case is new. in many re-
spects, in the history Of legislation in this
state. The process issued by the court,
at the request of the bank, was a gar
nishment, il which Ii was alleged that
the garnishee defendant, the Seattle &
International, had in its possession prop
erty belonging to the defendant COM
panies the Chicago, Burlington Quincy
and the Chicago, Burlington & Northern.
Under the law in this state the garnishee
defendant must make return Of all prop
erty Of the sued party in its possession,
and. pending the further action Of the
court, is not allowed TO let such property
go out Of its possession.
In several OF the Eastern states such
questions as the one under discussion
have been adjudicated upon. and in some
cases 1t has been held by the courts that
rolling stock, the property of interstate
carriers, cannot be levied upon in the
manner described. The ground for so
holding has been that the public had an
interest in the rolling stock of the car
rier, and that TO hamper the movement
of cars would tend TO operate against
that interest. The question. 1t Is stated,
has never been passed upon by the courts
in this state.
Another feature of the controversy lies
I'm the fact that of the ten suits insti-
tuted against the Burlington people, none
of them is for ar amount aggregating
more than $500 Under such circum-
stances neither party TO the action can
appeal 20 the supreme court. which has
jurisdiction alone OF suits involving more
than the amount named. Consequently,
the superior court of this county will be
called upon TO settle the question whether
the rolling stock of the defendant com
panies can be garnisheed in such an ac-
ton.