Vestal

This appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The suit was brought against the sheriff to recover for property seized at the suit of L. Newcomer against James Gleason, who is a brother of the plaintiff. The answer denies the title and possession of plaintiff, justifies under the writ, and avers title in Gleason.

Plaintiff derives her title from Gleason, and at the trial the controversy was as to the validity of the transfer to her. The questions raised relate almost entirely *397 to alleged erroneous rulings in the admission of evidence tending to establish the bona fides of the sale to plaintiff.

On the trial the plaintiff objected to the testimony of defendant on this subject, claiming that the answer did not raise the issue of fraud, and now insists that if the rulings complained of are erroneous they are still not injurious, for the same reason.

It is claimed that the insufficiency of this answer is established by the cases of Albertoli v. Branham, 80 Cal. 633 , 13 Am. St. Rep. 200 , and Sukeforth v. Lord, 87 Cal. 399 .

In those cases, however, the defendants did not content themselves with merely denying the right of…