
    J. W. Valentine et al., Appellants, v. S. Landecker, Respondent.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    December 8, 1885.
    Attachment — Bailment—Garnishment—Sale.—The fraudulent Tendee of the defendant in attachment, can not be held in garnishment, where the goods have been seized, prior to the garnishment, under an attachment by the same plaintiff in the hands of the defendant’s bailee, who has adTanced money thereon.
    Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Amos M. Thayer, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    H. W. Bond, for the appellants.
    Charles Nagel, for the respondent.
   Rombauer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause is identical, in all its features, with the case of Claflin v. Landecker (17 Mo. App. 615). That cause was decided upon full consideration of the points involved, and we must abide by the conclusions then announced, until they* are declared untenable by the supreme court, or until we become satisfied that they were erroneous. An examination of the elaborate and careful brief and argument filed herein by the appellant’s counsel, has failed to satisfy us that our conclusions in the case referred to were incorrect.

In conformity with our former ruling, the judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concur.  