Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

This was an action of ejectment to recover a lot of land at the northwest corner of Bush and Larkin streets, in the City and County of San Francisco, commenced January 24th, 1863.

On the 25th of August, 1863, Abner H. Barker recovered a judgment against defendant, F. B. Austin, in the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco, for two thousand nine hundred and forty-six dollars and ten cents, and twenty-six dollars and twenty-five cents costs. On the 26th day of bTovember, 1860, an execution was issued on the judgment and levied on the demanded premises by the Sheriff, who sold the same to Gr. W. Byckman, and in due time executed to him a deed. Byckman, on the 24th of February, 1862, conveyed the premises to the plaintiff. March 8th, 1862, both of said deeds were recorded in the office of the Becorder of San Francisco. At the time of the Sheriff’s sale the plaintiff was the owner and assignee of the judgment, and Byckman bid in the property for the benefit of plaintiff for the sum of four thousand four hundred and thirty-six dollars, which did not satisfy the judgment, as it bore interest at three per cent per month.

On the 22d day of February, 1855, defendant F. B. Austin made a deed of gift of the property to his wife, the defendant Mary A. B. Austin. At the time the deed was given the husband owed about eleven thousand dollars, and was not solvent. The debt on which the judgment was recovered was contracted in 1854. The deed of gift to the wife had not been recorded at the time of the trial of this cause. Beither Byckman nor plaintiff had knowledge of the existence of the unrecorded deed when they purchased, nor had they any knowledge that she claimed the premises as her separate property.

On the 14th of March, 1856, F. B. Austin and Mary B., his wife, conveyed said premises by their joint deed to Mansfield Compton, the other defendant, who, on the 10th day of June, 1856, without any consideration, conveyed the premises to said Mary B. Austin. The deed to Compton contained other property, and was given in consideration that Compton should pay Austin’s debts. Compton was unable to do this, and, therefore, at F. B. Austin’s request, conveyed the demanded premises to his wife. Both of the last named deeds were recorded, the" former March 14th, 1856, and the latter June 11th, 1866, and the Court found that both were given to defraud Austin’s creditors.

On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the judgment roll in Barker v. Austin. The defendants objected, because the Superior Court was a Court of special, inferior, and limited jurisdiction, and because the Court did not acquire jurisdiction of the person of the defendant Austin. The Court overruled the objection, and the defendants excepted.

Attached to the summons in said j udgment roll was the following affidavit, which was the only evidence of its service contained in the judgment roll:

“ City and County of San Francisco—ss.

“James Edwards, being duly sworn, says: That he received the within summons on the 13th day of August, 1856, and on the same day personally served the same by delivering to the said defendant, Franklin B. Austin, personally, in the City of San Francisco, a copy of said summons attached to a certified copy of the complaint, and leaving the same with him. Jambs Edwards.

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th August, 1856. J. B. McMinn, Clerk.”

The Court below gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants F. B. and Mary A. B. Austin appealed.

The other facts arc stated in the opinion of the Court.