China on Monday, Judge Lobingier gave judgement in an action at the instance of Dodge & Seymour (China) Ld., as relator, against Thurston R. Porter, U. 8. Marshal for China, respondent. Mr. Fran-lin appeared for the relator, and Major Holcomb for the respondent. His Honour's judgement was as follows This_is an application for a writ ai mandamus to compel the respondent to seize, under a writ of replevin, certain automobiles in possession of the receiver of Shanghai Taxicab Company. respondent's return to the alternative writ, is to the effect that respondent had been enjoined from executing said writ of replevin and that the bond whose sureties are required to be "approved by the Marshal" was not so approved by hm. It is not alleged nor proven that such approval was ever reqested nor that relator's—failure approve the bond was unjustified and it would thus appear that a ismer, though essential, step in the proceeding has been omitted. For since no judicial officer issues the "rit the Marshal must necessarily exercise caution in executing it. But it is a fundamental principle of the remedy here sought that the relator's right ''must be clear and complete" and that respondent roust have no discretion to refuse.
Again it is the law that: "If the act. of performance as sought to be compelled by mandamus has been restrained by injuction the writ-will not sue."'
Unless the injunction was void respondent's duty was to observe it and it was void only if issued without jurisdiction; for "if the court had acted within its powers and jurisdiction, although erroneously, the party would be in tempt for breach of the injunction We are not satisfied from the showing before us that the injunction is void. Indeed relator itself seems to have recognized its validity by moving to vacate it and to be estopped from asserting otherwise. Finally, and regardless of the foregoing, "Mandamus will not lie shore there is an adequate remedy by appeal."-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.