Opinion of the Court-Morgan, J.

"Q. What I am trying to get at how many old sheep belonging to Young and Christensen you had in the spring of 1910 A. You can figure that out yourself. I had about 3,000 old sheep; 3,100 belonging to other people, then 3,400 would belong to these people; how many would that make? "Q. Did you have 3,100 old sheep that you leased from Anderson and Jones? A. No.

"Q. How many old sheep did you have that you leased from Jones and Anderson in the spring of 1910? A. Must have had about 1500.

"Q. How many old sheep did you have in the spring of 1910 of the Christensen and Lund sheep? A. About 1,500. "Q. Then you didn't have 3,000 and you didn't lease that many sheep from Christensen, did you? A. Yes, I did.

"Q. What have you done with them? A. Sold them and ate them up.

"Q. And what? A. Sold them.

"Q. How many sheep did you sell out of these two herds. A. I can't tell; I sold the increase every year.

"Q. How many old ones did you sell? A. I sold from two to five hundred old ones at different years.

"Q. What I am trying to get at now is the number of old sheep say nothing about their increase at the time you made the first lease from the Christensens and Lund-got from them under that lease. A. About 2,000, I guess, old ones.

"Q. And how many lambs? A. About 1,800 old ones and about 1,600 lambs.

"Q. What time in the year did you get them? A. Got them in August.

"Q. That was 3,400 head of grown sheep that you had that fall? A. Yes.

"Q. Did you ever sell any of those sheep? A. Yes.

"Q. When did you sell them? A. Sold some that fall and some the next year.

"Q. And still continued to sell? A. Yes.

"Q. Do you know how many you sold that fall? A. About 200.

"Q. And how many the next year? A. I couldn't tell.

Opinion of the Court-Morgan, J.

"Q. Do you know how many old sheep you had at the expiration of that verbal lease you took from Christensen and Lund when you say you wrote a letter and changed the terms of the lease belonging to them? A. I don't think I had over 2,000. I don't think the old ones had increased any.

"Q. You had been selling the lambs right along? A. Yes. "Q. Treated these sheep from the time you got them until you turned them back as your own? A. Had full charge of them.

"Q. Sold them when you wanted to and sold the wool when you wanted to? A. With their permission, their part of it. "Q. But sold those sheep any time you wanted to? A. Yes. 'Q. Any part of them? A. Yes."

The testimony of Anderson is in part as follows:

"Q. Were those dealings with reference to the leasing of certain sheep to W. R. Young? A. Yes.

"Q. On how many occasions did you lease him sheep? A. I don't know how many times.

"Q. When was the first occasion when you had dealings with him of that nature? A. 1904, I think.

"Q. What did you do at that time? A. I leased him 500 head of sheep.

"Q. Where were the sheep at that time? A. They were in his herd, I think.

"Q. In what place? A. I don't know whether they would be in Sand Peak or where."

From other portions of Anderson's testimony it appears that he leased sheep to Young on but two occasions; 1,000 head in 1904 and 1,100 head in 1910.

Anderson further testified as follows:

"Q. When did you first know that Mr. Young had mortgaged those sheep to the Anderson Brothers bank and the Shelley Bank? A. I think he told us about the first of April.

"Q. You said in your direct examination that he told you he had mortgaged some of them? A. He told us he had mortgaged some of them. I don't remember how many.

"Q. That was about the first of April? A. Yes. "Q. 1911? A. Yes.

Opinion of the Court-Morgan, J.

"Q. Where were you when he told you that? A. At Goshen.

"Q. Did he tell you to whom they were mortgaged? A. I don't remember whether he did or not.

"Q. Did you make any effort at that time to ascertain who he had mortgaged these sheep to? A. No.

"Q. You didn't care whether they were mortgaged to the Anderson Brothers Bank or Shelley Bank or anybody else? A. Not at that time."

In another place in the record Anderson testified as follows: "Q. What were you getting under that lease? A. Straight 50 cents a head.

"Q. When were those payments made? A. At the proper shearing time.

"Q. You never were up here when the sheep were shorn? A. No.

"Q. You never had any agent here to claim any wool or wool money for you? A. No.

"Q. And never did anything about putting anybody on their guard as to who owned those sheep, did you? A. Never was up here.

"Q. Never wrote anybody? A. No.

"Q. And so far as you know no one knew but what W. R. Young owned those sheep? A. I don't know as to that." Without quoting further from the record it may be said that the testimony is intended to show that the sheep claimed by Anderson and Jones were taken from the possession of Young in April, 1911, and by them turned over to Andreas Sorenson, by whom they were kept as the agent of Anderson and Jones until in June, 1911, when they were sold to said. Andreas Sorenson and one Roy Young, who, it was admitted in the oral argument, was a relative of W. R. Young, the mortgagor. Prior to this pretended sale the relations between Andreas Sorenson and Anderson and Jones were such that Sorenson issued checks against the funds of his principals in the bank to cover the expense of caring for the sheep and the checks were presented and paid. The sheep repos

Opinion of the Court-Morgan, J.

sessed by Lund and the Christensens were taken over by them in July, 1911, and immediately transferred to Larson & Sons. It seems nearly incredible that the owners of sheep would deliver them over to another under contract of lease, allow him to remove them from the state, fail and neglect to conform to the recording laws of the state to which they were conveyed, permit him to treat them as his own, to sell and otherwise dispose of them until the number had been diminished from 6,700 to 3,000, and then to mortgage the 3,000, without exciting the curiosity of the owners sufficiently to prompt them to inquire as to the amount of the mortgage or to whom it had been given.

These are some of the circumstances disclosed by the record which probably prompted the trial judge to scrutinize the testimony critically and to reach the ultimate conclusion that W. R. Young was the owner of the sheep and that Anderson, Jones, Lund and the Christensens were not.

"Possession of personal property is prima facie evidence of ownership." (Goodwin v. Garr, 8 Cal. 615; Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503; Trevorrow v. Trevorrow, 65 Mich. 234, 31 N. W. 908.)

The case last above cited is from the supreme court of Michigan and the syllabus is as follows:

"In an action by an administratrix against the intestate's father to determine the ownership of a team of horses, evidence that the intestate used the team as his own for over one year justified the instruction to the jury that 'the possession of the team under a claim of ownership was presumptive evidence of the ownership, not conclusive, but sufficient until proof was introduced to the contrary,' although it also appeared from the evidence that the father had originally bought and paid for the team."

In this case the trial judge, who heard the testimony and had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness-stand, reached the conclusion that W. R. Young, the mortgagor, was the owner of the property. An examination of the record convinces us that he was justified in this finding and that the presumption of ownership created by

Points Decided.

the possession of the property, under the facts and circumstances of this case, is not overcome by the testimony introduced to rebut it.

The decision appealed from is accordingly affirmed and costs are awarded to the respondents.

Sullivan, C. J., concurs.

Budge, J., did not sit at the hearing nor take part in the decision of this case.

Petition for rehearing denied.

(January 20, 1915.)

E. H. JENNINGS, Respondent, v. IDAHO RAILWAY, LIGHT & POWER COMPANY et al., Appellants.

[146 Pac. 101.]

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS-NONRESIDENT ALTHOUGH COMPLYING WITH LAWS OF STATE- NOT EXEMPT FROM ATTACHMENT IMMATERIAL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED. 1. Under sec. 2792, Rev. Codes, which provides "That foreign corporations complying with the provisions of this section shall have all the rights and privileges of like domestic corporations, including the right to exercise the right of eminent domain, and shall be subject to the laws of the state applicable to like domestic corporations," such corporation is not a citizen or resident of this state within the meaning of the foreign attachment laws, and is not exempt from attachment as a nonresident.

2. A corporation organized under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, although engaged in business in this state and having complied with the constitution and all the laws of this state affecting foreign corporations, is a nonresident and subject to attachment as such.

3. Where counsel for respective parties agree that should the conclusion of the court be adverse to the contention of appellant upon one question, the remaining objections assigned become immaterial, and when it appears from the record that a consideration