of such judgment, out of any monies unappropriated of such township; or, if there were no such monies, of the first money that shall be received for the use of such township. See Act of July 14, 1917, No. 319, P.L. 840, § 1396 (codified at 53 P.S. § 18462 (repealed 1931)); see also Kamm, 86 P.L J. at 404. The procedure did not require the commencement of a wholly independent civil action for mandamus as the majority appears to deem necessary. 2 . The difficulty with the Commonwealth Court's opinion, in my view, is that it equates the ordinary writ of execution filed by the Union with the specialized "mandamus execution” writ called for by the formerly governing statute. See Borough of Wind Gap v. Teamsters Local 773 of the Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 759 A.2d 949, 953
holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer holding that a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted holding that an execution may not run against the property of a political subdivision of the state and thus the only procedure available to a judgment creditor is the issuance of a writ of mandamus holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances