"']
DAKOTA REPORTS. [Oct.,
ring now to the proceeding upon April 3d, the return ows that the argument of the order to show cause »ken up; that the first question raised was as to the Q of the court to make the order complained of; that, ^residing judge intimating that he should hold that quired jurisdiction, the attorneys for the relators ■e to appear specially, and file a motion to set aside appointing a receiver. Leave to file the motion was nd it was filed, and no argumenthas ever been had upon s the first intimation which the record affords of any pearance. The attorneys for the relators then began uj)On the merits of the appointment, and entered
- eading of affidavits; but. some question arising upon
on that these affidavits had not been served on the ide, the argument proceeded no further. The return ites that, at this point, the attorneys for the re- >ed that the plaintif s had already attached in the le (4,000 in bank, and that they would furnish an am- or such additional sum as the court might require if (vould accept such bond and discharge the receiver, osition the justice, against the objection of the plaiu- neys, intimated his willingness to accept, and then directed the receiver to proceed to take an inventory perty for the information of the court in determining it of the bond.
eturn also states that the justice requested one of the for the relators to facilitate the taking of such in- rhich he promised to do. It further states that no tion was taken by the justice in the matter; that he made any order, either oral or in writing, either mak- le to show cause absolute or discharging it, or over- granting the motion to set aside the order appointing , nor made any final disposition of the questions in- it that all further proceedings were by apparent mu- nt stayed, and the hearing and argument held in awaiting the taking of the inventory, and the giving ad, in which case the receiver was to be discharged
