Appeal from the Fourteenth District.

The case was tried by the Court, and the findings were substantially as follows:

This is an action of ejectment, to recover the Wisconsin Quartz Mill and Quartz Ledge, situated in Grass Valley township, Nevada county. On the tenth of January, 1858, plaintiff brought suit against Z. Mansau, C. Riley, and others, composing the Wisconsin company, to recover three hundred and sixty dollars, balance due for work, labor, and services rendered defendants, and on the same day caused an attachment to issue against the property of defendants, which was levied, on the same day, upon the premises in controversy.

June 26th, 1858, plaintiff amended his complaint, so as to make the “Wisconsin Quartz Mining Company,” a corporation, the party defendant.

The affidavit for attachment was entitled John GoUins v. Z. Mamau et al. August 14th, 1858, plaintiff had judgment against the “Wisconsin Quartz Mining Company,” and on the seventeenth of the same month, an execution was issued thereon, and levied on the property attached, which was sold by the Sheriff on the fifteenth of October, following, plaintiff becoming the purchaser, and in due time receiving the Sheriff’s deed.

Defendants’ claim is based on these facts: October 24th, 1857, Thomas Woodville loaned said quartz company $2,000, and received therefor a note, in the name of the company, signed by Joseph Woodworth, president, and H. G. Merrill, secretary of the company, and to secure its payment, a mortgage was executed to Woodville, upon the premises in question. The mortgage begins, “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Joseph Woodworth, Zephaniah Mansau, Cornelius Reilly, William Rodham, Charles Jones, and Patrick Conaty, all of Grass Valley, in the county of Nevada, State of California, miners, being the owners of the capital stock of the Wisconsin Quartz Mining Company, for and in consideration,” etc.; then continues as an ordinary deed to Thomas Woodville, with defeasance—the condition being to pay the note. The instrument is signed, sealed, and acknowledged by the grantors, with an affidavit annexed, as is required in the case of a chattel mortgage. The body of the affidavit contains the names of the mortgagors and mortgagee, but it is signed by the former only. Duly recorded in Chattel Mortgage Book, October 29th, 1857.

June 29th, 1858, Woodville brought suit to foreclose this mortgage, had decree the ninth of August, following, under which the property in question was sold October 18th, 1858, and bought in by Woodville, who subsequently assigned the certificate of sale to defendants, and they received the Sheriff’s deed.

The deeds of both plaintiff and defendants were recorded, the former, April 23d, 1859, the latter, April 15th, 1859.

. April 26th, 1859, defendants sued for possession of the property, and on the fourteenth of June, following, obtained judgment, and were put in possession by the Sheriff. Plaintiff here was not party to that suit, though in possession previous to the time the Sheriff put defendants in possession. Defendants were duly served with summons in all the suits before named.

Upon the foregoing facts, the Court below found that plaintiff could not recover, on the grounds, among others—1st, that plaintiff’s writ of attachment run only against the property of the defendant in that suit, and that the Wisconsin company, as a corporation, was not a party defendant until after the complaint was amended, which was long after the writ was executed, and that, hence, plaintiff acquired no lien by his attachment; 2d, that plaintiff’s lien dated from the rendition of his judgment, which, being five days later than the judgment of defendants against the corporation, which was equally a lien on the property, gives defendants the better right, even admitting the irregularity of the Woodville mortgage.

Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.