Diefendorff

Upon further consideration of this case, we are satisfied with the conclusion reached in Department One on the former hearing, and with the opinion then filed, and for the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

The following is the opinion above referred to, rendered in Department One on the 10th of December, 1891:—

Beatty, C. J. — The defendant, as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, levied a writ of attachment, issued in an action commenced by certain creditors of Mrs. M. A. Rix, against her and her husband, upon the furniture of a boarding and lodging house known as the “ Colonnade.” The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner

*345 of the property attached, as' vendee of the husband, demanded it of the defendant, and his demand being refused, commenced this action to recover damages for its conversion. The findings and judgment of the superior court were in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. In support of his appeal from the judgment, the plaintiff makes two assignments of error: “ 1. The judgment is erroneous on the face of the record, because there…