Davis

Suit to quiet title; judgment for plaintiff ; defendant appeals.

The parties stipulated that the only question' torbe determined is, whether^ certain attachment, under-which the plaintiff claims, wasiproperly levied upon the -.lot jn controversy. .\Upoh the former appeal it was, held that the .return was prima facie sufficient. (Davis v. Baker, 72 Cal. 494 .) The defendant now urges two reasons why the levy'should be held to be-insufficient.

1. It is argued that the writ was insufficient in that it did not state “ the amount ” of the plaintiff’s demand, as *107 required by section 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but stated that the action was to recover $620, “ or thereabouts.” We are inclined to doubt whether this question is, open for consideration under the stipulation. Assuming that it,is open, there is no foundation for it in the record. It appears that the writ was introduced in evidence, but it is not shown by the bill of exceptions. The only thing that appears is an objection by counsel, in the course of which he recites a portion of the writ. This is not a sufficient mode of showing a fact. If it be assumed to be sufficient, it only purports to be a part of the…