White

The judgment rendered in the action of Robert White v. Daniel White and Eliza Jane White, and the execution issued thereon, were a sufficient justification for the seizure and detention of the vessel. (Freeman on Judgments, secs. 116, 118, 119; Bicker staff v. Doub, 19 Cal. 112 ; Moore v. Martin, 38 Cal. 428 .)

The order vacating the judgment against respondent and recalling the execution did not and could not have the effect to make appellant liable for the acts done under their authority before the order was made, because the judgment was free from all irregularity, and was rendered in strict conformity with the rules of practice. (Freeman on Judgments, sec. 104; Bank of Missouri v. Franciscus, 15 Mo. 303 ; Deal v. Harris, 8 Md. 43 .)

The coverture of respondent did not render the judgment against her void or irregular; it was a matter of defense against *436 the demand for a personal judgment, which should have been set up in answer, and then proved on the trial. ( Gambette v. Brock, 4L Cal. 82; Freeman on Judgments, sec. 150.)

Sol. A. Sharp, for the Respondent.

In the year 1871, Daniel White and Eliza Jane White, the plaintiff here, delivered to Robert White, one of the…