No. 3175 | Wash. | Feb 18, 1899
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The appellant, having commenced an .action to foreclose a farm mortgage, applied for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property ■and apply the rents and profits to the payment of the mortgage debt. A receiver was appointed, and subse■quently thereto, but prior to the entry of a decree in the principal action, the court, on motion of the respondents, vacated its previous order of appointment, and thereupon fhe plaintiff appealed.
We think the case is controlled by Norfor v. Busby, 19 Wash. 450" court="Wash." date_filed="1898-06-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/norfor-v-busby-4724051?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4724051">19 Wash. 450 (53 Pac. 715). That case was ably presented and received mature consideration from this court, and ■the able argument of appellant’s counsel has failed to convince us that it should be overruled. We think that, fol
The cases of Dickson v. Matheson, 12 Wash. 196" court="Wash." date_filed="1895-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dickson-v-matheson-4721148?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4721148">12 Wash. 196 (40 Pac. 725); Greene v. Williams, 13 Wash. 674" court="Wash." date_filed="1896-02-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/greene-v-williams-4722855?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4722855">13 Wash. 674 (43 Pac. 938); Burnham v. Spokane Mercantile Co., 18 Wash. 207" court="Wash." date_filed="1897-12-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/burnham-v-spokane-mercantile-co-4723827?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4723827">18 Wash. 207 (51 Pac. 363), and State ex rel. Grady v. Lockhart, 18 Wash. 531 (52 Pac. 315), are not in point, because the question in each of these related to the power of the court to disturb a final order or judgment.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Bullebton, Beavis, Andebs and Dunbab, JJ., concur.