it is especially importaot to notice, viz.: ' have repeatedly applied to said court, throu Dodge & Camp and Nickeus & Baldwin, ap] for the dismissal of said order and receive which application has ib every instance bei court. " The only foundation for this recita by the affidavits on which the writ is based, that on the return-day of the order to show "the relators appeared, by their attorneys s; the court to dismiss said order made on the March, for the reason that the same was in tion, and the court overruled said motion."
We notice right here two circumstances been called to the att«ntion of the justices wl would probably have led to its refusal, tow affidavit does not disclose what was done by upon the order to show cause; second, that, leged by the affidavit that "the court over: i. e., the motion to dismiss the order of Mar any order overruling that motion, or any mi the petition for the writ. A truthful ans concerning these significant omissions wo the very important fact that no final dU been made by the court, either of the ordei the apparently superfluous motion to dismi having even been argued.
The writ was duly served, and a return justice presiding in the Sixth judicial distrU length all the proceedings had before him : appending copies of all the papers. We s such matters as seem to us sufficient to disp<
The first paper which we notice is a cop show cause, procured by the attorneys for tl thirty-fir.st day of March, 1886. This order tion in which the receiver was appointed, is
"Upon reading and filing the motion o and the afiidavits and exhibits hereunto ann
