APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.
In an action brought in a District Court of the Territory of Arizona, by G. H. Thompson against C. H. Lord and W. W. Williams, partners under the name of Lord & Williams, an attachment was sued out, October 28, 1881, and levied by the sheriff, the present appellant, upon "certain goods, wages and merchandise, being the entire stock of Lord and Williams." H. B. Cullum, claiming to be the owner of the property at the time the attachment was levied, brought this action against the sheriff to recover possession thereof, or its value, in case delivery could not be had. The answer put in issue the plaintiff's ownership of the goods, and averred that, when taken under the attachment they were owned by and in possession of Lord and Williams. The pleadings, therefore, raised the question of the ownership of the goods attached.
The District Court made the following finding of facts:
"1. That on the 25th day of October, A.D. 1881, at the city of Tucson, Charles H. Lord. W. W. Williams and C. E. Harlow, then, and for several months before that time, composing the mercantile firm of Lord & Williams Company, and exclusively engaged in general commercial business, viz., buying and selling goods, being insolvent, made and executed as such firm a general assignment of all their property, not exempt from execution, for the equal benefit of all their creditors, to Henry B. Cullum, the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff immediately accepted said assignment and took possession of the property conveyed by it, including the property mentioned in the complaint, which property was a portion of the property of the said Lord & Williams Company at the time of the assignment. The assignment was executed in the firm name by W. W. Williams, and also signed by said Williams and said Harlow individually, and by the said Lord by his attorney the said C. E. Harlow, the said Harlow then holding a general power of attorney from him, and the said Lord being then absent from the Territory, and sick, and his whereabouts
being entirely unknown at that time to his partners and family, though every reasonable effort had been made to discover it, and that said assignment was ratified and approved by said Lord at the earliest opportunity.
"2. That on the said 25th day of October, A.D. 1881, and for a long time previous thereto, at said city, the said Charles H. Lord and W. W. Williams were co-partners in the banking business and in dealing in live stock, under the firm name of Lord & Williams; that on said last mentioned day the said firm of Lord & Williams, being then insolvent, made and executed a general assignment of all its property, not exempt from execution, for the general benefit of all its creditors, to the said Henry B. Cullum, who thereupon immediately entered upon the possession of the same and accepted the trust. Said assignment was executed in the firm name by said Williams, and also signed by him, individually, and by said Harlow, as Lord's attorney in fact.
"3. That said assignments were made in good faith by the said firms respectively, and that at the time of making the same the assignors had full confidence in the ability and integrity of said Henry B. Cullum.
"4. That on the 28th day of October, A.D. 1881, one G. Howard Thompson commenced a suit in this court against the said Lord & Williams, and sued out an attachment therein against the property of the said Lord & Williams, and placed the same in the hands of the defendant, Robert H. Paul, who was then the sheriff of Pima County, aforesaid; and the said Paul, claiming that the said goods and property in the complaint mentioned and described were then the property of the said Lord & Williams, and not the property of Cullum, the plaintiff, seized and attached the same on October 28, 1881, and held the same until replevied in this suit.
"5. That at the time the property was so seized and attached it was the property of the plaintiff, and not subject to such seizure or attachment.
"6. That its value was $35,000."
The plaintiff, having taken the property into possession, the judgment was that he retain possession and recover his costs.
That judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, the record in that case containing an agreed "statement on appeal," upon which, in connection with the finding of ...