tion in said cause was issued to the sheriff of the said county of Custer for service, and returned as against the said property of the said defendant company, which had, as will hereafter more fully appear, been sold under certain other executions issued in certain other cases upon judgments therein obtained, by means whereof this plaintiff has failed to realize any part or portion whatsoever of the amount of its said judgment against the said defendant, the Bassick Mining Company, up to and including the day hereof.

"(9) The plaintiff further alleges that on or about the first day of June, 1885, one William D. Schoolfield, who is made a party defendant to this suit, commenced a certain action in the district court in and for the county of ́ Custer aforesaid, against the said defendant, the Bassick Mining Company, Fred McKeon, M. D. Swisher, M. M. St. Clair, Julia E. Hamlin, the Latlin & Rand Powder Company, Frazer & Chalmers, and the Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Company, to enforce a lien upon and against the property hereinbefore mentioned as having been attached at the instance of this plaintiff, together with all and singular the improvements thereon; that afterwards, and about the nineteenth day of June, 1885, the said action was dismissed as to the said Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Company, Fred McKeon, M. D. Swisher, William Houze, M. M. St. Clair, Julia E. Hamlin, the Laflin & Rand Powder Company, and Frazer & Chalmers.

“(10) That in said action, brought by the said Schoolfieid, H. T. Holthoff, John H. Templeman, and John Jordi intervened as lien claimants against the said defendant, the Bassick Mining Company, and against the said property hereinabove described.

"(11) That on or about the eleventh day of June, 1885, one Thomas Armstrong was, by order of said court duly made, allowed to intervene in said action, and did so intervene, and filed his petition, claiming a miner's lien upon the said Maine lode only, and upon such buildings and permanent improvements and appurtenances as belonged thereto for and on account of work done and performed in and about said Maine lode within the months of March, April, May, and June of said years, by himself and certain persons who had assigned their respective claims and liens therefor to him for purposes of enforcement, amounting to the sum of twenty-one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven dollars and eighty-five cents, ($21,847.85.)

(12) That said petition of said Armstrong, among other things, set forth and alleged that the above said work and labor was done and performed by said persons in the working and development of said Maine lode, and the said Armstrong in no wise or manner whatsoever claimed, or attempted to claim or demand, a lien on any of the other of the said premises of the said defendant company.

"(13) And afterwards, and on the nineteenth day of June, 1885, in said action so brought by the said Schoolfield, the said court entered its decree, which said decree, after reciting that the cause coming on to be heard upon the complaint, the answer and the cross-bill of the defendant B. C. Adams, the intervening petition of H. C. Holthoff, John H. Templeman, Thomas Armstrong, and John Jordi, and the default of the Bassick Mining Company to answer, and the report of the referees theretofore appointed, orders that said plaintiff, Schoolfield, have a lien and judgment upon the property of the said company, described in his complaint, for six thousand ninety-three dollars and nine cents, ($6,093.09,) and costs; that said defendant, B. C. Adams, have a lien and judgment upon the property of the said defendant, Bassick Mining Company, as asked for in his said complaint, for two thousand three hundred and twenty-one dollars and fifty cents, ($2,321.50,) and costs; that the intervening petitioner John Jordi have a lien and judgment upon the property of said company, as asked for in his said petition, for two hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, ($262.50,) and costs; that the intervening petitioner Thomas Armstrong have and recover of and from the said defend

ant company the sum of twenty-one thousand two hundred and twenty-five dollars and ninety cents, ($21,225.90,) and that he have a lien upon the property of the said defendant, the Bassick Mining Company, therefor, as asked for in his said intervening petition, and his costs to be taxed; that the intervening petitioner Templeman have a lien and judgment upon the property of the said mining company, as asked for in his petition, for seven hundred and ninety-seven dollars and fifty cents, ($797.50;) that the intervening petitioner Holthoff have a lien and judgment upon the property of the said defendant company, as asked for in his said intervening petition, for four thousand two hundred and twenty-one dollars and twenty-six cents, ($4,221.26,) as asked for in his said petition. The said decree further orders that all property mentioned or described in the petition of said Schoolfield, being the said property so as aforesaid attached by this plaintiff, be sold by the sheriff of the said Custer county, on the terms and conditions as a sheriff is directed by the law to sell real estate on execution; and after having given notice as required by law for the sale of real estate on execution for cash in hand to the highest and best bidder, selling said property in separate parcels or altogether, as would bring the most money; that the said sheriff was thereupon then ordered to appropriate the proceeds of said sale-First, to the payment of the costs of said suit, and of the receiver who had been appointed thereunder; second, to the payment pro rata of all and singular the several liens and judgments therein decreed, and, in case the said judgments should not be satisfied in full, then that all parties, claimants thereunder, should have execution for the balance remaining unpaid.

"(14) That the said defendant company in said decree was not given any time whatsoever for the payment of the said decree, or any part thereof, prior to the issuance of execution thereunder, and that it was provided that such executions should issue at once and without delay.

"(15) Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, and so charges the fact to be, that the said property of the said defendant company, mentioned in said decree, was and is of great value, to-wit, of the value of not less than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000,) and that the said Maine lode is the main or principal lode of the said defendant company,—the other lodes, however, being also of great value; that the mill of the said defendant company, which plaintiff is informed and believes is of a value of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars, ($25,000,) is not upon said Maine lode at all, but upon one of the other properties mentioned in said decree.

"(16) Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, that the said parties to the said action at the time the said action was brought by the said Schoolfield, and in whose favor the several liens were allowed, were in collusion with each other, and caused the published notice of the sale under said decree to be commenced on the eighteenth day of June, 1885, one day before the said decree was signed by the said court; that said notice was given in the Rosita Index, a paper published in Rosita, in said Custer county, which said paper is a weekly paper, and the issue thereof for said week in which said notice first appeared was published on Thursday, the eighteenth day of June, 1885; that said paper is published and issued on Thursday of each week; that the first issue thereof made after the signing of said decree was made on Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of June, 1885; that the sale of the property under said decree of said court was made by the sheriff of said county on the eleventh day of July, 1885, sixteen days after the said twenty-fifth day of June, 1885, which said June 25th was the first possible date that public notice thereof, under said decree, could have been given through said paper, and that no other notice of sale than the said notice in said paper, commenced on June 18, 1885, was given of said sale of said premises under said decree. “(17) That afterwards, and on the eleventh day of July, 1885, pursuant to the said notice so as aforesaid given, the said sheriff sold said premises de

scribed in said decree, being the identical property hereinbefore described, to satisfy said liens and judgments in said decree mentioned; that said property was not sold separately, but, on the contrary, all of said property was sold en masse, and the same realized at the said sale, above expenses, the sum of thirty-eight thousand dollars, ($38,000,) or thereabouts.

"(18) That the said premises were sold as aforesaid, as well upon the decree in behalf of said Armstrong as upon the decree in behalf of the other lien claimants, and all of said property was sold as much under the said decree of the said Armstrong as of the other said lien claimants, notwithstanding that the said Armstrong claimed no lien whatsoever upon any of said. premises save and excepting the said Maine lode mining claim. And the plaintiff avers that by reason of the said advertisement and manner of said sale, and by reason of the making of the decree as aforesaid, the plaintiff has been advised that the said sale is probably null, and, if so, that no rights can be required by redemption creditors thereunder.

"(19) Plaintiff further alleges that the sale has at no time been affirmed by the said court, or the judge thereof, and that on or about the eleventh day of January, 1886, the time for the redemption of said premises from said sale by the said defendant company expired and ceased by limitation.

"(20) That on or about the twelfth day of January, 1886, the said Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Company caused to be issued out of the said district court of Arapahoe county an execution in due form, directed to the sheriff of Custer county, for service and return, and accompanied the same with funds to redeem the said premises under the said sale made in virtue of said decree; but having been advised that by reason of the said irregularity of said decree, and the sale thereunder, the same was not by the said Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Company redeemed.

"(21) The plaintiff, further complaining, alleges that the said defendant Bassick is one of the directors of the said defendant company, and that he, together with the defendants White, Staples, and others, as plaintiff is informed and believes, has entered into a combination and conspiracy with themselves to have the property in said decree mentioned realize as small a sum as possible, that they might buy in the same for their own use and benefit, and thereby deprive, defeat, cheat, swindle, and defraud the creditors of said defendant company out of their just debts and demands; that said White, as the assignee of a judgment of one A. Vorreiter against the said Bassick Mining Company in the district court in and for said Custer county, for the sum of three thousand one hundred and fifty-two dollars and fifty-seven cents ($3,152.57) debt, and the further sum of twenty-two dollars and sixty cents costs, with interest thereon from the date of the said judgment, on which said judgment is a credit of three hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty-three cents, ($361.83,) subsequent to the expiration of six months' time of redemption given said company from said sale, and during the month of January, 1886, sued out an execution on said judgment last aforesaid, and placed the same in the hands of the sheriff of said Custer county to execute; that said sheriff, the defendant Hunter, did indorse on the back of the said execution, issued on said judgment of said Vorreiter, a levy upon said property in said decree described; whereupon the said White paid the said sheriff the sum of $39,523.15, being the amount of money and costs as realized on said sale of July 11, 1885, with accrued interest, to redeem the same, in said decree mentioned in said action brought by said Schoolfield, W. Armstrong, and others as intervenors. "(22) That said defendant Hunter, sheriff of said county, under and by virtue of said redemption of said White, did advertise the said property in said decree mentioned for sale to the highest and best bidder for cash for the tenth day of March, 1886; whereupon the said Hendrie & Bolthoff Manufacturing Company did file its certain complaint in said cause, upon which a writ of injunction issued, commanding the said defendant wholly to

desist and refrain from making sale thereunder until the further order of the court in the premises; whereupon the said Hunter did, instead of returning the execution in his hands as by law he was required to do, with the causes of his failure to sell indorsed thereon, advertised that he would adjourn said sale to the twenty-fourth day of March, 1886, between the hours of 10 o'clock A. M. and the setting of the sun on that day. That on said day, the said injunction being still depending undetermined, the said Hunter did further postpone said sale by advertisement until the fourteenth day of April, 1886, and afterwards, and on the fourteenth day of April, 1886, the said injunction being still against the said sale, postponed the said sale until the sixth day of May, 1886, at the hour and place specified; and afterwards, and on to-wit, the sixth day of May, 1886, advertised that he would postpone the said sale until the thirteenth day of May, 1886, when the same would take place at the hour and place therein specified; the last said postponement having been advertised but for the period of seven (7) days in the said Rosita Index, (being but one issue of the said paper,) and said advertisement having appeared only on the day of said sale, as plaintiff is informed and verily believes, which, as aforesaid, is a paper published weekly in said county and state, and a copy of which said advertisement is in words and figures following: [Here follows advertisement of sale and postponements.]

"(23) Plaintiff further alleges that the said writ of injunction having been dissolved by order of the judge of said court on, to-wit, the tenth day of May, 1886, prior to the said sale, the said defendant Hunter did proceed to make sale under and by virtue of the said advertisement and judgment and executions aforesaid, and that other creditors did then and there offer and bid the sum of $50,000 upon and for said premises, whereupon the defendant Staples, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, collusion, and intention to cheat and defraud, as hereinbefore stated, did bid the sum of $60,016.67 upon said premises; he, the said Staples, claiming by virtue of said bid to be the assignee of a judgment of Radcliff Brothers against said Bassick Mining Company upon a judgment obtained by them against the said company for the sum of $678.70, said judgment having been obtained in the district court in and for the said county of Custer.

"(24) That, immediately after the said sum of money was by the said Staples so as aforesaid bid at said sale, the said defendant sheriff, by virtue of an execution issued out of the district court of the Third judicial district within and for said county in favor of said defendant Staples, as assignee of the said Radcliff Brothers, plaintiff, against the said Bassick Company, wherein and whereby he was commanded to make the said sum of $678.70, did advertise in the said Rosita Index that he would offer and expose for sale on the tenth day of June, 1876, the said premises hereinabove described, for the purposes of making the said sum of $678.70, and the further sum of $60,016.70, being the said sum paid by the said Staples as aforesaid, together with interest on said sums as provided by law, said sale to take place at the front door of the court-house in said town of Rosita between the hours of 10 o'clock A. M. and the setting of the sun on the same day, and which said publication is in words and figures, as follows, [notice of sale.]

"(25) The plaintiff further alleges that after the said sale of the eleventh day of July, 1885, and after the said sale of the thirteenth day of May, 1886, as it is informed and believes, the said defendant the Bassick Mining Company sued out its certain writ of error from the supreme court in and for the said state, directed to the said district court of Custer county in the said cause, entitled W. D. Schoolfield, et al., with the said Armstrong as Intervenor, against The Said Bassick Mining Company,' and did cause a transcript of the said record to be lodged in the clerk's office of the said supreme court; and that afterwards, and to-wit, on the seventeenth day of May, 1886, the said supreme court, having fully examined the record and assignment of errors

therein, did grant a supersedeas as to the decree and judgment rendered in said cause upon the filing of a bond in the sum of seventy thousand dollars, which said bond has been duly signed, executed, approved, and filed, and the said supersedeas granted.

"(26) That in and by the said writ of supersedeas all proceedings under the said judgment obtained in the said case of Schoolfield have been suspended by reason of the said action of the said supreme court, and the said cause is now pending in the said court on said writ of error, subject to the review of said tribunal.

"(27) The plaintiff, further complaining, alleges that it is a non-resident corporation, and that the various matters and things hereinabove set forth have only come to its knowledge within, to-wit, the last twenty days, and that the facts connected with the said sale, the granting of the supersedeas, and the character of the said decree, and the sale thereunder in the said cause of Schoolfield, were not brought to its attention and knowledge until within, to-wit, the last two or three days.

"(28) This plaintiff, further complaining, alleges that it stands ready and willing and is anxious to purchase said property at the said sale, to take place on, to-wit, the tenth day of June, 1886, and that the said sum of sixtytwo thousand dollars, or thereabouts, it has raised and collected for the purpose of making redemption therefrom, in order that it may realize the amount of its said judgment against the said defendant company, and that the said judgment cannot be realized by it against the said defendant company save by and through its purchase of the said property under the statutes of the state of Colorado as a judgment creditor; that it has no desire to obtain the said property for its own use or purposes, and that the same, according to its best knowledge, information, and belief, is amply sufficient to pay all the judgments and claims of creditors against it, provided the same can be applied to that purpose.

"(29) The plaintiff, further complaining, alleges that it is advised that, inasmuch as the said supreme court has granted a supersedeas upon said judgment and decree in the said Schoolfield case, and inasmuch as the said judgment may be wholly reversed and declared void, for naught held, and inasmuch as the said property was originally sold pursuant to said insufficient advertisement, and en masse instead of separately, and inasmuch as said sale was not confirmed, and inasmuch as the said sale made on the thirteenth day of May, 1886, on said Vorreiter judgment, was made as aforesaid upon an advertisement and notice of seven days only, it cannot pay the said sum of more than sixty thousand dollars with complete safety to itself; but that should the said judgment be set aside, or should said Schoolfield sale be held to be irregular and of no effect, the said sum of $60,000 so as aforesaid required to be paid, might be forever lost to this plaintiff, to its great, irreparable, and utter damage and ruin; and that, on the other hand, should the said sale be ratified and confirmed, and the said judgment under which the same was made be held to be valid, then in the event this plaintiff fails to pay the said sum of money, and cause said property to be then sold upon its own execution, it will forever lose its said judgment of sixteen thousand seven hundred and odd dollars, with interest thereon, to its great damage.

"(30) The plaintiff, further complaining, alleges that inasmuch as the said sale so as aforesaid advertised and published for the tenth day of June, 1886, is a sale to be made under the said execution issued on the said judgment of Radcliff Brothers, the said defendant Hunter declines to pay any attention to the supersedeas issued in the said Schoolfield case by the said supreme court, but has notified the plaintiff that he is advised that it is his duty, and that in consequence he will proceed, to make said sale under said execution of Radcliff Brothers in behalf of said Staples at the time and place therein mentioned, and that, in the event the said sale does not realize from outside bid