Withoft

Such defense as is put forward on behalf of the San Francisco Commercial Agency and the sheriff is necessarily involved in that of the Western Meat Company, and I need therefore refer only to the contentions urged by this last-named, and perhaps principal, defendant. Upon its behalf it is argued': (1) That it is without any liability whatsoever; and (2) that the value of the property seized and sold was comparatively small.

As to the first proposition, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Perry did not direct the sheriff to proceed with the sale until after he had laid the facts before the meat company's general attorney, and had been expressly authorized by him to take the course which was finally pursued. While there is little direct or positive evidence upon the point, the circumstances of the case leave little room for doubt that the managing officers of the meát company, with knowledge of the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding, for the purpose of securing the payment of its claim in full, concluded to-assume the risk involved, and expressly authorized Perry to proceed.

But even if we put aside such a view of the record, the defendant must still be held to be liable.…