The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-04-07
WHERE A RECEIVER Is Sued.
County Clerk Said 70 Have No Right
20 Collect Fee rron Litigauts.

An opinion on q question os practice in
the superior court OF considerable interest
10 lawyers. and lit:gants as well. was ren-
eered yesterday oy the prosecuting at,or-
neys Office 1, involves the RICH. Of the
county clerk, who Is ex-ocecso clerk OF
The court mentioned 10 collect q regular
appearance fee from parties appearing in
a recetsersEip case fer the sole purpose
Of obtaining leave Of the court TO sue
Its receiver In another action The opin-
Ton IS 10 the effect t1zt the clerk has no
such right,
There Is some question whether the
clerks Office will recognize he orinsan
arsc FOLLOW the prosecuting attorneys rul-
ing without first testing the sax IL, the
courts. bar should the practice which nos,
obtains in regard 10 the collection OF
fees OF the kind mentioned be abandoned
the lawyers viii never complain. The
practice did not originate under tae ores
ent clerk. George NJ. Holloway. but under
his predecessor. T. w. Gordon. Ii Las
always been complained OF BY the legal
fraternity. and some lawyers have lied
IL extortion. but as no one. OF tie reSascl-
trants ever broegh, the subject before the
courts in test case the legality q: the
clerks course has never been passed upon
The alleged abuse had its inception ah,s,,,.
six years ago. when the present system of
superior court practice wtss framed By ,ae
legislature. The laws Of is.ss prescribe that
when plaintiff commences IN action he
shall pay TO the clerk a fee OF ST. which
shall cover all costs up 10 the entry OF
Judgment and further provides that any
person thereafter appearing in the sase
adversely as defendant ilte, yenor. or
otherwise. shall pay fee o. s. to cover
all costs up TO Judgment.
In all cases where receiver is sled IL
is required that the consent os the court
appointing the receiver shall first lie OBJ
tanned The usual method OF ootaiaing
this consent has been By ii petition tn the
court entitled and filed in the receiv-rship
case. and cour, order upon the petit
ton.
For sling such a petition and order the
present clerk and mis- predecessor who
was in office when the new law went into
effect, have always charged the regulation
fee OF s. although the lawyers. almoS,
without exception. have claimed that IT
was illegal Hundreds o. dollars have
been SO paid TO the county. Yesterday 4
well-known attorney called upon the
prosecuting attorney for an opinion and
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Fulton. at
the request OF Prosecuting Attorney Nc
Elroy. wrote the county clerk the follow
ing letter:
Il have been requested u render YOU
an opinion upon your right IN charge an
appearance Tee or y to q party procuring
and Ming order of court for leave 10
sue receiver. such order being made and
filed in the rece!vership case In my ol,ir-
ION the iilng OF such an order does no..
constitute an appearance in such receiy-
ersbip case Of the party procuring the
same within the meaning o. he law The
law gives you a right To eharga a defend
ant or other adverse party or any one or
more OF several defendants or adverse
parties appearing in a case s. when is
or their appearance is entered
To entitle you to make this charge as
an appearance fee, the party must be a
defendant or an adverse or Intervening
party, In other words must be a party
interested in the subject matter Of the
suit In which the appearance il entered
person obtaining the leave to sue
receiver does not thereby become an
intervening or adverse parry within the
meaning OF the law in the re-eivership
case. and does not therefor make such
IN appearance In the "a sc as entities you
TO charge the statutory appearance fee
County Clerk Holloway has not yet In
vestigated the matter. being absent from
his office yesterday, but may decide to
continue to refuse TO file papers OF the
kind Indicated until ordered TO do so by
the court In n mandanus cast brought to
test the question.