TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Norris Safe & Lock Co. v. Superior Court

The State of Washington on the Relation of Norris Safe & Lock Company v. Superior Court of King County

State ex rel. Norris Safe & Lock Co. v. Superior Court, 70 P. 256 (Wash. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 2, 1902
Docket
No. 4424
Citations
70 P. 25630 Wash. 1771902 Wash. LEXIS 666
Syllabus
CERTIORARI-WHEN LIES — REMEDY BY APPEAL. The supreme court will not review an order of the superior court restraining interference with a receiver’s possession of a certain building which was claimed hy other parties, since there is a remedy hy appeal from such order. APPEAL —■ STAY OF RESTRAINING ORDER —■ SUPERSEDEAS BOND. Upon a showing of the superior court’s refusal to fix the amount of a supersedeas bond staying the execution of a restraining order pending appeal, the supreme court,, although denying the writ of certiorari in the cause, will direct the. lower court to fix the amount of such bond.
Summary
Original Application for Certiorari.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Application for review. Tlie relator seeks to review hy certiorari a certain order made by the superior court of King county in the matter of a receiver in the case in which one Schwartz was plaintiff and the Chicago Purniture & Stove Co., a corporation, defendant, entered on the 22d day of September, 1902. The respondent moves to. quash the writ on the ground that an adequate remedy exists in appeal. The order made by the court in substance restrained relator, its agents, servants, and employees, from entering into or conducting business in a certain building on Second avenue, in Seattle, of which the court found that the receiver in said action was in possession, and which possession was disputed by relator; and, it appearing that said order may be reviewed *178 on appeal, the motion to quash is sustained. It thereupon being shown to the court that relator had applied to the superior court to fix the amount of the supersedeas bond staying the execution of said order pending appeal, and the court refusing to make such order, and counsel requesting that an order he now issued from this court directing the superior court to fix the amount of such supersedeas bond, it is therefore ordered that the superior court fix the amount of such supersedeas bond staying the enforcement of the said order of that court pending the appeal.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11924: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooper v. Hindley126 P. 916 (Wash. 1912)
  2. State ex rel. Engen v. Hewen221 P. 976 (Wash. 1924)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Engen v. Hewen221 P. 976 (Wash. 1924)
  2. Cooper v. Hindley126 P. 916 (Wash. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list