Replevin F e — Under admissions in this case judgment for defendant replevying property in sum owed by plaintiff is upheld.
In this case it was determined by the verdict of the jury that replevying defendant was the owner of the property, and it was admitted in the pleadings that the property when paid for by plaintiff was to belong to plaintiff. The verdict established that the value of the property at the time of the seizure was $600 and its present value $300, and that plaintiff was indebted to defendant in the sum of $300.
Held, a judgment in defendant's favor for $300 to be a lien on the property is, in view of the admission, in substantial compliance with the law.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover certain personal property which he caused to be seized under proceedings in claim and delivery. The defendant replevied. The jury found that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property, that its value at the time of seizure was $600, its present value $300, and that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant in the sum of $300. It was adjudged that the plaintiff recover $600 with interest less $300 to be credited as of the time of trial and that the recovery in favor of the plaintiff, excepting the sum of $50 is a lien upon the property described in the pleadings. The question is whether the verdict supports the judgment. It is recited in the judgment as an admission of the defendant that the property when paid for was to be the plaintiff's. In view of this admission we think the judgment is in substantial compliance with the law.
No error.