C21 f££l£KAL BBfOB'I'EIt. �tion, be and they are, and every one of them is, hereby enjoined and restrained from making any levy upon or sale of the property and effects of said bankrupt until his application for discharge iu bank- ruptey by this court and now pending shall have been heard and de- termined, or the further order of the court. " A certified copy of this order, not including the petition, was on the same day served upon Taylor, and no further proceedings were taken on the said execution, except that it was returned by the marsbal "No property found. Jan- I ary 26, 1881." The injunetion order was never served upon either Youmans or Prentiss, his attorney; and both deny emphatically all knowledgeof it. On the tenth of Pebruary, 1881, Youmans sold and assigned his judgment to one Vonderschmidt, for whom Prentiss sub- sequently acted. �On February 21st, Prentiss requested the clerk of the court again to issue execution on the judgment, which he did, and delivered it to Wagner, another city marshal, for execution. The property in the store where the bankrupt was being claimed by his brother, Vonder- schmidt, the assignee of the judgment, on February 23d, gave a bond of indemnity, with surety, to Wagner, the marshal, who on the 24th went to Cary's place and levied under the execution upon a quantity of clothes-hooks, the brother's property, and packed them in two packing cases, alleged to be the property of the bankrupt, and of the value of five dollars; and on February 25th removed them to an auction store for sale. The clothes-hooks were replevied in a suit brought by the bankrupt's brother against the marshal and You- mans, and that suit is still pending; the packing cases, the property of the bankrupt, of the alleged value of five dollars, have disappeared. �On the twenty-fifth of February a petition was presented to this court setting forth a part of the above facts only, asking for an order, which was granted on the 26th, to show cause why Youmans, Prentiss, and Wagner should not be punished for contempt in violating the injunetion order of January 7th. A further application for restrain- ing the sale of the goods levied on was denied, on the ground, as stated in the memorandum upon the papers, that "the goods being alleged not to belong to the bankrupt, an injunetion as to them would be im- proper." The order to show cause was served upon the three respond- ents named, each of whom put in an afHdavit denying any knowledge of the injunetion until service of the order to show cause, upon which an order of reference to the register was made on May 4, 1881, to take proof of the facts; and upon his report, and all the papers in the case, the matter has been brought to a hearing. ��� �
