Case Name: Susan P. Brady v. John Cook
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1891-04
Citations: 68 Miss. 636
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susan P. Brady v. John Cook.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Susan P. Brady v. John Cook.
Replevin. Verdict. Separate valuation; when unnecessary.
In replevin -where one party has given hond for the property, a verdict in favor of the other party should assess the value of each of several articles differing in value, in order that the property may be restored or its value paid as assessed. But, if it appears that the party after giving bond has disposed of the property, so that none of it can be returned, a verdict .for the other party assessing the value at an aggregate sum is good.
From the circuit court of Sunflower county.
HON. B. W. WilliamsoN, Judge.
^Replevin by John Cook against Susan P. Brady for 16 bales of cotton and 350 sacks of cotton seed. Defendant gave bond for the forthcoming of the property. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The jury did not assess the value of the several bales of cotton separately, but valued the 16 bales at an aggegrate sum. On the trial it was shown that the defendant, after giving bond for the forthcoming of the property, had sold the cotton and that return thereof could not be made. Defendant appealed.
Since the error assigned as to the form of the verdict is the only one mentioned by the court in its opinion, it is not deemed necessary to give the facts as to other points presented by the record and discussed by counsel.
Galhoon & Green, for appellant.
Chapman & Paxton, for appellee.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
We find no reversible error in this record.
The failure of the jury to assess the value of the several bales of cotton separately was not made,a ground for a new trial in the circuit court, and would not have been available, if it had been, because it was shown that the cotton had been sold, and the proceeds received by Mrs. Brady. The reason of the requirement to find the value of each of several articles differing in value is that the defendant or co-obligors in the replevy-boud given may make return of tbe thing, if return thereof be adjudged, but when it appears that it has been disposed of and cannot be returned, as in this case, the reason fails.
Affirmed.