The defendant had the right to appeal from the order appointing a receiver, and if he was deprived of that right without his laches he is entitled to a certiora/ri, as a substitute for an appeal. The question then is, was he deprived *258of his right of appeal without his laches. The facts are, that he asked for an appeal and his Honor refused to grant it.
O.ur attention was called for the first time to the fact, that a party may appeal without the sanction of the Judge, C. C. P., S. S. 299,.300, 301, 302. We do not mean that we had not before noticed the said sections of the Code, bnt we have had no occasion for their practical application to a case like the one before us, because we have- had no- case- in which an appeal was refused. It is true that an appeal may be taken without the sanction of the Judge, if the parties can make out the case by agreement, without his intervention ; bnt it is a different question whether the parties can perfect an appeal, not only without the sanction, hut in spite of the prohibition of the Judge. It may be that both the parties and the clerk, in certifying the record, would be. in contempt. But we do not think it necessary to deci.de that, because taking it to be that the defendant might-,.in spite of the prohibition of the Judge, have brought up his case by appeal, yet as the practice has been uniformly the other way, and as it was commendably respectful to the Court to forbear,, we do not feel at liberty to refuse him a certiorari, as a substitute for the remedy of which lie was deprived.
Let a certiorari issue,. &c.
Per Ocrjam.. Order accordingly.,