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 appropri ate 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 18th 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 18th 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 25th 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 11th day of July, 1885, sixteen days after the said 25th day of June, 1885, which said June 25 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 11th day of July, 1885, pursuant to the said notice so as aforesaid given, the said sheriff sold said premises described 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 de

cree as aforesaid, the plaintiff has been advised that the said sale is probably null, and, if so, that no rights can be acquired 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 11th 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 12th 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 eightythree 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 on the 10th 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 24th 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 14th day of April, 1886, and afterwards, and on the 14th day of April, 1886, the said. injunction being still against the said sale, postponed the

VOL. X-3

said sale until the 6th day of May, 1886, at the hour and place specified; and afterwards, and on, to wit, the 6th day of May, 1886, advertised that he would postpone the said sale until the 13th 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 10th 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, plaint