s 93 ràDEBAIt BEP0BT2SB. �ters ana other credîtors. These ail convey the leasehold and the press. At the November term of this court, in the case of Daivson v. Daniel, the motion for a new trial was over- ruled, and the plaintiff moved for a venditioni exponas to com- pel the marshal to proceed with his levies. Daniel, the defendant, resisted this motion, filed an aifidavit, exhibiting Judge Baxter's letters, and the "order" of the clerk, and stat- ing the facts relied on to show an abandonment of the levies by the marshal, and insisted that the venditioni exponas should not issue — First, because the Jieri facias had issued prema- turely, and was void; second, because the levies had been abandoned by the plaintiff and the marshal. The court, on February 8, 1879, granted the motion of the plaintiff, and ordered a venditioni exponas to issue. �On February 12, 1879, Steers & Co. removed their bill from the state court to this court, and thereupon moved for an in- junction against Dawson, who was a party to the bill, to prevent a sale under the vend. ex. and for a receiver. Free- man, the trustee for creditors, then iiled a cross-bill, claiming the property as against Dawson upon the ground of abandon- ment, and that the execution was void because issued pre- maturely. Daniel's three sisters also filed a cross-bill, claim- ing that Daniel had used their money, left in trust with him, in purchasing the property, and they set upa resulting trust; and Steers & Co. filed a supplemental bill claiming also under their deed of trust to Warriner. �By agreement of ail the parties the marshal was made provisional receiver, and, pending the controversy, a private sale was negotiated for $30,000, which was approved by the court, and an agreed deoree entered requiring $6,000 to be depositedin court to satisfy Dawson's judgment, if he had a better title than Freeman, and the balance was paid in dis- charge of Steers & Co.'s claim and that of the three sisters. By this arrangement these latter claims are out of the way, and the only question is whether Dawson or Freeman, the trustee, bas the better title to the $6,000. �Gantt e Patterson and Metcalfe Walker, for plaintiffs. �Humes à Postôn and Lowrey Humes, for defendant Dawson» ����
