The American state reports, containing the cases of general value and authority subsequent to those contained in the American decisions and the American reports decided in the courts of last resort of the several states (Volume 12) online

KF
141
A3
v.12



LIBRARY

University of Californii

IRVINE^



[HE] IBRARY



[HE UNIVERSITY



OF CALIFORNIA




GIFT OF



J. A. C. Grant







THE



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS,

CONTAINING THI

CASES OF GENERAL VALUE AND AUTHORITY

SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE "AMERICAN
DECISIONS" AND THE "AMERICAN REPORTS,"

DECIDED IN THI

COURTS OF LAST RESORT

OP THE SEVERAL STATES.

, REPORTED, AMD ANNOTATED



BY A. 0. FREEMAN,

AND THE ASSOCIATE EDITORS OF THE "AMERICAN DECISIONS."



VOL. XII.



SAN FRANCISCO:

BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY,

LAV PUBLISHERS AND LAW BOOKSKLLIBS.
1890.



V,



Rntered according to Act of Congress in the year 1890,

BY BANCROFT- WHITNEY COMPANY,
la the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.



FILJIBB-ROLLINS KLicTBorrra COMPAJTT,
TYPOGRAPHERS AND STBRKOTYPUI.



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL. XII.



SCHEDULE

showing the original volumes of reports in which the
cases herein selected and re-reported may be found,
and the pages of this volume devoted to each state.

MM,

CALIFORNIA REPORTS Vols. 78, 79. 17-182

FLORIDA REPORTS Vol. 24. 183-234

GEORGIA REPORTS Vols. 80, 81. 235-360

INDIANA REPORTS Vol. 119. 361-460

KENTUCKY REPORTS Vol. 87. 461-507

MASSACHUSETTS REPORTS Vol. 148. 608-607

MINNESOTA REPORTS Vols. 39, 40. 608-763

NEW YORK REPORTS Vol. 115. 764-858

PENNSYLVANIA STATE REPORTS . . Vol. 126. 864-922



SCHEDULE



SHOWING IN WHAT VOLUMES OP THIS SERIES THE OASES

REPORTED IN THE SEVERAL VOLUMES OF OFFICIAL

REPORTS MAY BE FOUND.



State reports are in parentheses, and the numbers of this series In bold-faced flffuw.



ALABAMA. (83) 3; (84) 5; (85) 7; (86) 11.

ARKANSAS. (48) 3; (49) 4; (50) 7.

CALIFORNIA. (72) 1; (73) 2; (74) 5; (75) 7; (76) 0; (77) 11; (78, 79) 18.

COLORADO. (10) 3; (11) 7.

CONNECTICUT. (54) 1; (55) 3; (56) 7.

DELAWARE. (5 Honst. ) 1.

FLORIDA. (22) 1; (23) 11; (24) 12.

GEORGIA. (76) 2; (77) 4; (78) 6; (79) 11; (80, 81) 18.

ILLINOIS. (121) 2; (122) 3; (123) 5; (124) 7; (125) 8; (126) 9; (127) 11.

INDIANA. (112) 2; (113) 3; (114) 5; (115) 7; (116) 9; (117, 118) 10; (119)

12.

IOWA. (72) 2; (73) 5; (74) 7; (75) 9.
KANSAS. (37) 1; (38) 6; (39) 7; (40) 1O.
KENTUCKY. (83, 84) 4; (85) 7; (86) 9; (87) 18.
LOUISIANA. (39 La. Ann.) 4; (40 La. Ann.) 8.
MAINE. (79) 1; (80) 6; (81) 10.
MARYLAND. (67) 1; (68) 6; (69) 9.
MASSACHUSETTS. (145) 1; (146) 4; (147) 9; (148) 18.
MICHIGAN. (60, 61) 1; (62) 4; (63) 6; (64, 65) 8; (66, 67) 1L
MINNESOTA. (36) 1; (37) 5; (38) 8; (39, 40) 18.
MISSISSIPPI. (65) 7.

MISSOURI. (92) 1; (93) 3; (94) 4; (95) 6; (96) 9; (97) 10.
NEBRASKA. (22) 3; (23, 24) 8.
NEVADA. (19) 3.
NEW HAMPSHIRE. (64) 10.

NEW JERSEY. (43 N. J. Eq.) 3; (44 N. J. Eq.) 6; (50 N. J. L.) 7.
NEW YORK. (107) 1; (108) 2; (109) 4; (110) 6; (111) 7; (112) 8; (113) 10;

(114)11; (115)12.

NORTH CAROLINA. (97, 98) 2; (99, 100) 6; (101) 9; (102) 1L
OHIO. (45 Ohio St.) 4.
OREGON. (15) 3; (16) 8; (17) 11.
PENNSYLVANIA. (115, 116, 117 Pa. St.) 2; (118, 119 Pa. St.) 4; (120, 121

Pa. St.) 6; (122 Pa. St.) 9; (123, 124 Pa. St) 10; (125 Pa. St.) 11; (126

Pa. St.) 12.
RHODI ISLAND. (15) 2.

7



8 SCHEDULE.

SOUTH CAROLINA. (26) 4.

TENNESSEE. (85) 4; (86) 6; (87) 1O.

TEXAS. (68) 2; (69; 24 Tex. App.) 5; (70; 25, 26 Tez. App.) 8; (71) 1O

(27 Tex. App.) 11.
VERMONT (60) 6.
VIRGINIA. (82) 3; (83) 5; (84) 1O.
WEST VIKOINIA (29) 6; (30) 8.
WISCONSIN. (69) 2; (70, 71) 5; (72) 7; (73) 0.



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL. XII.



CASES BEPOKTED.



HAM*. , SOBJicr. REPOBT. PAQB.

Abrahams v. Anderson .......... Execufnexempfn. 80 Ga. 570 ....... 274

Adams v. Chicago etc. R R. Co. ..Railroads. ........ 39 Minn. 286. .... 644

Adkins v. Whalin ............... Champerty. ....... 87 Ky. 153 ....... 470

Ahernv. Steele ................. Nuisance ......... 115 N. Y. 203 ..... 778

Ahlbeckv. St. Paul etc. R'y Co... Carrier*. ......... 39 Minn. 424. . . . . 66)

Alexander v. Searcy ............. Corporation ...... 81 Ga. 536 ....... 337

Allen v. Pioneer Press Co ........ Libel. ............ 40 Minn. 117 ..... 707

Almand T. Scott ................ LandFd and tenant. 80 Ga. 95 ........ 241

Alt v. Banholzer ................ Homestead ....... 39 Minn. 511 ..... 681

Arey T. City of Newton. ......... Munic. corporat'ns. 148 Mass. 598 ..... 604

Atlanta etc. Mills v. Coffey ....... Negligence ........ 80 Ga. 145 ....... 244

Barrett v. Choen ................ Administrator's sak.119 Ind. 56 ........ 363

Bartlett v. Odd Fellows Sav. Bank. Attorneys' contracts. 79 Cal. 218 ....... 139

Bartonv. Benson ................ Contracts ......... 126 Pa. St. 431 - - 883



Beyersdorf v. Sump ............. Malicious attachm't. 39 Minn. 495 ..... 678

Boardman v. Ward .............. Assumpsit ........ 40 Minn. 399 ..... 749

Bohu Mfg. Co. v. Jameson ....... Statutes .......... 39 Minn. 438 ..... 663



Bonlden v. Mclntire ........... | ^"^^ [ 119 Ind. 574 ...... 453



Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Gaffney . .Minor employees. . .119 Ind. 455 ...... 422

Briggs v. Union Street R'y Co - - Negligence ........ 148 Mass. 72 ...... 518

Brown r.Starr .................. Homestead. ....... 79 Cal. 608 ....... 180



Brucev. Bissell ............... wXa ^f Un , ll9Ind. 525 ...... 436

Brueu v. Gillet. ..... . ........... Trusts and trustees.115 N. Y. 10 ...... 764

Bryant, Ex parte ................ Criminal law ...... 24 Fla. 278 ....... 200

Burkett v. Burkett .............. Homestead ....... 78 Cal. 310. ...... 68



* ......

Buzby v. Philadelphia Traction Go. Negligence ........ 126 Pa. St. 559. ... 919

Carll v. Emery .................. Frond, conveyance. 148 Man. 32 ...... 615

Champion v. Woodi ............. Deceit mutate. .. 79 CaL 17 ........ Hi



10 CASES REPORTED.

NAME. SUBJECT. Biron. PACK.

Chope v. City of Eureka ......... Munic. corporat'na. 78 Cal. 688 ...... 113

\Tradcwrk. ..... 40 Minn. 243 ..... 726

Citizens' National Bank v. Piollet.JVep. instruments. .126 Pa. St. 194.. .. 860

Clay v. Western Union TeL Co. . . Telegraph ........ 81 Ga. 285 ....... 316

Commonwealth v. Donahue. ...... Criminal law ...... 148 Mass. 529 ..... 591

Commonwealth v. Green ......... Grand jury ....... 126 Pa. St. 531 .... 894

Commonwealth v. Ha is ted ....... Munic. corporat'na. 148 Mass. 375 ..... 566

Cook v. Pinkerton .............. Sales ............. 81 Ga. 89 ........ 297



Corcoran v. Corcoran .......... j 2JJ11*&* 138 ...... 390

5 ........ 183



County of Pine v. Willard ....... Office and officers. . . 39 Minn. 125 ..... 622

County of Yolo v. Barney ........ Dedication ...... v . 79 Cal. 375 ....... 152

Crosland v. Pottsville Borough. . . .Nuisances ........ 126 Pa. St. 511 - - 891

Curdy v. Berton ................ Wills ............. 79 Cal. 420 ....... 157

Curry v. Curry .................. Subrogation ....... 87 Ky. 667 ....... 504

Cusick v. Adama ................ Negligence ....... 115 N. Y. 55. ..... 772

Daly v. Georgia Southern and ) ,. . ., onr , - O o OQfi

Florida R R Co > Munic. corporal ns . 80 Ga. 793 ....... 286

Davis v. City of Crawfordsville. j ^^^ }l!9Ind. 1 ........ 361

Dean v. Chicago etc. R'y Co ...... Railroads ........ 39 Minn. 413 ..... 659

Denholm v. McKay .............. Partnership ....... 148 Mass. 434 ..... 574

Dodge v. Boston and Bangor S. S. Co. Carriers .......... 148 Mass. 207 ..... 541

Downing v. Mason County ........ Counties .......... 87 Ky. 208 ...... 473

Eilers v. Conradt ................ Debtor and creditor. 39 Minn. 242 ..... 641

Emery v. Steckel ................ Master and servant. 126 Pa. St. 171 - - 85^

Farnum v. Hefner ............... Landlordand tenant. 79 Cal. 575 ...... 174

Feeney v. Howard ............... Fraud ............ 79 Cal. 525 ...... 162

Flaherty v. Minneapolis etc. R'y Co. Carriers .......... 39 Minn. 328 ..... 654

81Ga " 461 ....... 328



Fogg v. Boston and Lowell Rail- LM m M H8 5g3
road Corporation .... ....... (

Fontaine v. Bush ................ Statute of frauds. . 40 Minn. 141 ..... 722

Gale v. Best .................... Patent. .......... 78 Cal. 235 ....... 44



G BankiIg Co nra ar a " Judgments. ....... 80 Ga. 595 ....... 276

*** ......... 80Ga.776 ..... ... 282



80Ga.793 ....... 286

Gilbert v. Crystal Fountain Lodge. Libel and slander. . 80 Ga. 284 ....... 255

Glenn v. Howard ............... Stockholders ....... 81 Ga. 383 ....... 318

Glover v. Dwight Mfg. Co. ....... Master and servant. 1 48 Mass. 22 ...... 512

Godfrey v. Valentine ............ Process. .......... 39 Minn. 336 ..... 657

Grandona v. Lovdal ............. Nuisance ......... 78 Cal. 611 ...... 121

Grant v. Kuglar ................. Watercourses ...... 81 Ga. 637 ....... 348



CASKS REPORTED. 11

Kiln. SUBJECT. RSPORT. PA.

Griffin v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. . . . Master and servant. 148 Mass. 143 ..... 526

Griswold y. Gebbie .............. Fraud ........... 126 Pa. St. 353. ... 878

Griswold y. New Yorketc.R.RCo.^^ewyic.... 115 N.Y. 61 ...... 775

Gurley v. Annstead .............. Camera .......... 148 Mass. 267 ..... 655



Habenichtr.Lissak ........... j JJjjgj^ f 78 CaL 351 ....... 63

Hanaen v. Pence ................ Negligence, ....... 40 Minn. 127 ..... 717

Hardenbergh v. St. Paul etc. R'y Co.Carriers .......... 39 Minn. 3. ...... 610

Harris v. State. ................. Larceny .......... 81 Ga. 758 ....... 355

Hockenhull v. Oliver ............ Deeds. ........... SO Ga. 89 ........ 235

Hutchcraft v. Travelers' Ins. Co.. .Insurance ......... 87 Ky. 300. ...... 484

Ingalls v. St. Paul etc. R'y Co. ... Fixtures .......... 39 Minn. 479..... 676

Ingram, In re ................... Succession ........ 78 Cal. 586 ...... 80

Jennings y. Bank of California. . . .Banks and banking. 79 Cal. 323 ...... 145

Jensen v. Perry ................. Agency ........... 126 Pa. St. 495. ... 888

Johnson y. Cochran .............. Estoppel .......... 81 Ga. 39 ........ 294

Keith y. Walker Iron and Coal Co. Corporations ...... 81 Ga. 49 ........ 296

Kentucky 0. R'y Co. y. Ackley. . . Master and servant. 87 Ky. 278 ....... 480

Kern v. Bridwell ................ Physicalexandnafn.US Ind. 226 ...... 409

Kerr y. Minnesota M. B. Ass'n. . Insurance. ........ 39 Minn. 174. .... 631

Koenigv. Kraft ................. WOlt. ............ 87 Ky. 95. ....... 463

Landmesser's Appeal ............ Quardianandward. 126 Pa. St. 115. ... 854

Lang v. Moray .......... . ....... Homestead. ....... 40 Minn. 396. . . . . 748

Lawrence y.Gayetty .......... j !L [ 78 Cal. 12 ...... 20

j "^^ f 80 Ga. 706 ....... 281



Tn8titution f r \ Savings bank ..... 148 Mass. 235 ..... 535



Lincoln y. City of Boston. ........ Mwuc. corporal' ns. 148 Mass. 578 ..... 601

Lord v. Edwards ................ Sales warranty. . . 148 Mass. 478 ..... 581

Louisville etc. R. R. Co. y. Crunk. Personal injuries. .119 Ind. 542 ...... 443

Lonisville, New Albany, and Chi- ) n _,_ f~,j~,Ok no r~A in 7i

cagoR'yCo.v.Goodykoontz.. \ Damages /or deaOi.119 Ind. Ill ...... 371

Magee y. North Pac. C. R. R. Co. Master and servant. 78 Cal. 430. ...... 69

Manning v. Spragne ............. Champerty ........ 148 Mass. 18 ...... 508

*SSStttt^?. |**-***.1 Mass, 553 ..... 598
Marshall's Trustee v. Rash ........ Trusts. ........... 87 Ky. 116 ....... 467

Marsland v. Murray ........... | ^ -%%1^" | 148 Ma88 ' 91 ...... 62

Matthews v. Hudson ............ Witts ............ 81 Ga. 120 ....... 305

McCord v. Western Union TeL Co. Telegraphs ....... 39 Minn. 181 ..... 636

McDanell v. Landruin ........... Married women.. . . 87 Ky. 404. ...... 500

Mcln tire v . Levering ............ Malicious prosecu'n. 148 Mass. 546 ..... 594

McWhorter v. Pensacolaand At- ) o.,v ,.;.//* o^ un- .117 OOA

lantic R. R. Co .............. f *"* a 9^nst state.. 24 Fla, 417 ....... 220

Meyer v. Berlandi. .............. Statute* .......... 39 Minn. 438. . . . . 663



12 CASES REPORTED.

NAMB. SUBJKCT. EIPOBT. PAW.

Minneapolis Threshing Machine ) Corporationa ..... 40 Minn. 110 ..... 701

(Jo. v. Davis ................ )

Moon v. Jennings ................ Co-tenancy ........ 119 Ind. 130 ...... 383

Moore v. Williams ............. Vendor and vendee. 115 N. Y. 586 ..... 844

Moylev. Landers ............. | ^UT } 78 C ^ " ........ *

Mudge v. Steinhart .............. Attachment ....... 78 Cal. 34. . ..... 17

Myers v. Caperton ... ........... Banks and banking. 87 Ky. 306 ....... 488

Nichols v. City of Duluth ........ Munic. corporat'ns. 40 Minn. 389 ..... 743

Nye's Appeal. ................... Husband and wife . 126 Pa. St. 341 .... 873

Old Colony Railroad v. Slavens . . .Negligence ........ 148 Mass. 363 ..... 558

Osborne v. McMasters ........... Negligence ........ 40 Minn. 103 ..... 698

Oullahan v. Sweeney ............ Retrospective law. . 79 Cal. 537 ....... 172

Patterson v. Gibson .............. Duresg ........... 81 Ga. 802 ....... 356

Patterson v. Hemenway .......... Negligence ........ 148 Mass. 94 ...... 523

Peavy v. Georgia Railroad and ) Carriert> , . 81 Ga. 485 ....... 334

.Banking (Jo ................. )

PennsylvamaR.R.Co.v.Ameri- L ^ ..... m p& St>485 .... 885

can Oil Works ............... )

People v. Van Ness .............. Office and officer*. . . 79 Cal. 85 ....... 134

People's Mut. A. Ass'n v. Smith. .Insurance ......... 126 Pa. St. 317 - - 870

Peters Box etc. Co. v. Lesh ....... Fraudul't purchase.119 Ind. 98 ........ 367

Phenix Insurance Co. v. Pickel. | DM ^nc^ '"" [ H9 Ind. 155 ...... 393

Pierro v. St. Paul etc. R'y Co ..... Judgments ........ 39 Minn. 451 ..... 673

Piersonv. Crooks ............... Sales ............ 115 N. Y. 539 ..... 831

Postv. Weil .................... Deeds condition*. .1151$. Y. 361 ..... 809

Prather v. Richmond and Dan- j Railways mas- ) onn,, ,107 OQ

villeR.R.Co ............... \ ter and servant, f fi ' Ga " 427 ....... 263

Randall v. Van Wagenen ........ Attorney's lien ..... 115 N. Y. 527 - - 828

Read v. Buffum .................. Corporation officers. 79 Cal. 77 ........ 131

Rideout v. Knox ................ Fences nuisances. . 148 Mass. 368 ..... 560

Riggs v. Palmer ................ Statutes .......... 115 N. Y. 506 ..... 819

Rogers v. Benton ................ Mortgages ........ 39 Minn. 39 ...... 613

Roth well v. Robinson ............ Corporations ...... 39 Minn. 1 ....... 608

Salter v. Salter. ................. Equity ........... 80 Ga. 178 ....... 249

Sanders v. Cooper ............... Insurance ........ 115 N. Y. 279 ..... 801

Sauls v. Freeman ................ Disqualified judge. . 24 Fla. 209 ....... 190



Second National Bank v. Howe. . .Neg. instruments. . 40 Minn. 390 ..... 744

Sesler v. Montgomery ........... Slander .......... 78 Cal. 486. ...... 76

Shore v. Miller .................. Evidence .......... 80 Ga. 93 ........ 239

Shores v. Brooks ................ Landl'dand tenant. 81 Ga. 468 ....... 332



Simpson v. McCarty.. ......... j A *'* a %fc a * } 78 Cal. 175 ....... 37



Si^thurst r. Proprietors etc. of )^ % .. 148 Mass. 261 .. . 560

Congregational Church ....... f

Smith v. Los Angeles etc. Ass'n. . . Corporations ...... 78 Cal. 289 ....... 53



CASES REPORTED. 13

HAM*. SOBJSCT. RIPOBT. PAQK.

Snider r. State. ........ , ........ Liquor taut. ...... 81 Qa. 753 ....... 350

StateT. Deal .................... Statutes .......... 24 Fla. 293 ...... 204

State ex rel. v. Chicago etc. R'y Co. Commerce ........ 40 Minn. 267 ..... 730

Stewart T. Minnesota T. Co. ...... Libel ............ 40 Minn. 101 ..... 696

SuttonT. Sutton .............. j ""'tLtae* \ 87 ** 216 ...... 476

78Cal.600 ....... 118



Tarver v. Torrance .............. Ex'rsandadmin'rs. 81 Ga. 261 ....... 311

Thompson v. Scheid ............. Chattel mortgages. . 39 Minn. 102. . . . . 619

Townshend v. Goodfellow ........ Specific perform ce. 40 Minn. 312. .... 736

Travelers' Insurance Co. T. Jones.. Insurance ......... 80 Ga. 541 ....... 270

Twist v. Winona. etc. R. R. Co.. . .Negligence child. . 39 Minn. 164 ..... 626

WCW.W. ...... 55



Ungericht r. State .............. Sunday laws ...... 119 Ind. 379 ...... 419

Usher v. West Jersey R. R. Co. . .Negligence ........ 126 Pa. St. 206 - - 863

Van Winkle ft Co. T. Wilkins - - Damage* ......... 81 Ga. 93 ........ 299

Wachusett Nat. B*k T. Fairbrother. ffeg. instrument*. . . 148 Mass. 181 ..... 530

Wardv. Cobb ................... Real estate broker. . 148 Mass. 518 ..... 587

Wells v. Harper ................. Bx'rs and admin'r*. 81 Ga. 194 ....... 310

Welter v. City of St. Paul ....... Munic. corporations. 40 Minn. 460. .... 752

Western etc. R. R. Co. T. Young.. Damages ......... 81 Ga. 397 ....... 320

Weyant v. Murphy .............. Mistake equity. . . 78 Cal. 278 ...... 50

Whitev.Lee ................... Miningclaims ..... 78 Cal. 593 ....... 115

Wilkerson v. Clark .............. Shelley's case. ..... 80 Ga. 367 ....... 268

Williams v. Glenn's Adra'r ....... Judicial sales. ..... 87 Ky. 87 ........ 461

Wilson v. Hayes ................ Mortgages ........ 40 Minn. 531 ..... 754

Winona, City of, r. School District. School district ..... 40 Minn. 13. ..... 687

Wither. T.Jack* ............. | J* J*^ \ 79 Cal. 297 ...... 143

Wright T.Hugh.. ............. j Qwjwl 35!It.VwL f lwIn<L82 *- ...... *"



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

TOL. xn.



CASES

m THB

SUPKEME COUET

or

CALIFORNIA*



UN BANK.]

MUDGB v. STEINHAET.

[78 CALIFORNIA, 34.]

COLLATERAL ATTACK ON AN ATTACHMENT CAN NEVER BK SUSTAINED FOB
CAUSES which do not render the writ absolutely void, and not merely
voidable.

A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT CAN HATE No FORCE UNLESS ISSUED in an action
on a contract express or implied.

WBIT OF ATTACHMENT is NOT A LAWFUL PROCESS OF THE COURT, and
therefore cannot be invoked to sustain the jurisdiction of the court, when
it appears from the final judgment that the plaintiff had no cause of ac-
tion against the defendant upon any contract express or implied.

ATTACHMENT, WHEN WILL NOT SUPPORT JUDGMENT. If the defendant is a
non-resident of the state, and has not entered his appearance in the ac-
tion, a judgment for the sale of his attached property cannot be main-
tained where the recovery against him is only upon a cause of action for
which no attachment could lawfully issue.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION. Deposit of summons and complaint
in the post-office at the place where the attorney for plaintiff resides and
has his office, instead of in the post-office where the order of publication
was made, is not improper.

PRACTICE. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TAKES THE PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL,
and is therefore the proper pleading to deposit in the post-office where
the service of process is made by publication.

McAllister and Bergin, and W. B. Sharp, for the appellant.
William Matthews, for the respondents.

SKABLS, C. J. This is an appeal by William Scholle, one of
the defendants, from a final judgment in the above-entitled
cause, subjecting certain real property, situate and being in the

AM. ST. REP., VOL. XII. 2 17



18 MUDGE v. STEINHABT. [Gal.

city and county of San Francisco, to sale, to satisfy claims of
the several firms, and a corporation composing the parties
plaintiff.

Defendant Scholle, the appellant, was, at the date of the
complaint, a non-resident of the state of California, and a
resident of New York City, in the state of New York. The
summons was served upon him by publication, and no answer
having been filed by or for him, judgment was taken by de-
fault.

It appears from the judgment that certain real property of
appellant in the city and county of San Francisco had been,
before the service of summons, attached to satisfy the de-
mands and costs of the plaintiffs in the action, and the extent
of the judgment, as against appellant, is to decree this real
property to be sold to satisfy the amount found due from him
to the plaintiffs.

Various objections are urged by appellant to the validity of
the judgment, among which are: 1. That the relief granted by
the court is other and different from that prayed for in the
complaint; 2. That as against appellant there was no proper
service of summons, by publication or otherwise; 3. That the
case was not one in which a writ of attachment could issue,
and as this was the only basis of jurisdiction against appel-
lant, the judgment cannot be upheld.

As the last-named objection seems the most important, we
will consider it first.

The allegations of the amended complaint, the prayer for
judgment, and facts as to service of summons essential to an
understanding of the foregoing points, may be stated thus:

The firm of Feist, Frank, & Co., composed of Adolph Feist,
Abraham Frank, Jacob Levy, and Israel Steinhart, were
engaged in business in San Francisco, and as such firm
purchased goods, wares, and merchandise from the sev-
eral firms, etc., the plaintiffs herein, all of whom were New
York merchants. Being largely indebted for goods thus pur-
chased, the firm of Feist, Frank, & Co., for the purpose of
cheating and defrauding their creditors by collusion with ap-
pellant and the other defendants herein, and without con-
sideration, made a large number of promissory notes for
various large sums of money to various persons, who con-
spired with them to accomplish the result in view.

Numerous actions were instituted in this state against Feist,
Frank, & Co., among which was one by appellant and others,



Dec. 1888.] MUDQE v. STEINHART. 19

upon eight of said pretended and fraudulent promissory notes,
for the sum of $24,124.42, in which action a writ of attach-
ment issued, and was levied upon the property of Feist, Frank,
& Co. Judgment was obtained by appellant and his associates,
and an execution issued, under which property of the value
of two hundred thousand dollars was sold, and purchased by
the appellant in the name of one of the other defendants.

Plaintiffs had obtained judgments against the firm of Feist,
Frank, & Co., who are insolvent, before the institution of this
action.

The amended complaint herein contains full and ample
charges of fraud on the part of appellant, whereby, as is
averred, he obtained large sums of money from the firm of
Feist, Frank, & Co., and contains most of the essential alle-
gations of a creditor's bill.

An order was made by the superior judge of Santa Clara
County, on the fifteenth day of February, 1884, directing the
service of summons as against appellant by publication, and
directing a copy thereof, and of the complaint, to be forthwith
deposited in the post-office, directed to appellant at New York
City, etc. An amended complaint had been before that time
filed, a copy of which, with the copy of summons, was, on the
same day, viz., February 15th, deposited in the post-office at
San Francisco, the place of residence of plaintiff's attorney,
directed to appellant, etc., as by the order required.

The appellant, being a non-resident of the state of Cali-
fornia, and not having been served with summons except by
publication, and not having appeared in the action, we must,
in order to uphold the judgment, be able to see that the appel-
lant had property in this state which was brought within the
control of the court, and subjected to its jurisdiction by pro-
cess adapted to that purpose, or that the judgment was sought
as a means of reaching such property.

Kecurring to the complaint, we find respondents sought by
the allegations and prayer to obtain a personal judgment
against appellant, and to subject to the satisfaction of that
judgment certain real property in Santa Clara County, averred
to have been purchased with the fruits of appellant's fraudu-
lent acts. In this, respondents failed, and their judgment
only decreed the sale of a lot of land in San Francisco, which
had been levied upon and brought within the jurisdiction of
the court under a writ of attachment issued in the cause.

The contention of appellant is, that inasmuch as the action



20 MUDQB v. STEINHART. [Cal.

is clearly one in tort, and not founded in contract, express or
implied, the attachment was improperly issued, and that its
levy created no lien which the court could enforce.

In discussing the jurisdiction of the court over property of
non-residents not personally served, the supreme court of the
United States, in Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 319, used the
following language: "Now, in this class of cases, on what does
the jurisdiction of the court depend? It seems to us that the
seizure of the property, or that which, in this case, is the same
in effect, the levy of the writ of attachment on it, is the one
essential requisite to jurisdiction, as it unquestionably is in
proceedings purely in rem. Without this, the court can pro-