
    A. R. CONNOR v. J. H. MASON.
    (Filed 1 November, 1933.)
    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 replevy-ing 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.
    Appeal by defendant from Grady, Jat May Term, 1933, of Pamlico. No error.
    
      F. C. Brinson and Ward & Ward for plaintiff.
    
    
      Z. V. Rawls and R. F. Whitehurst for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover certain personal property which he caused to be seized under proceedings in claim and delivery. Tbe defendant replevied. Tbe jury found that tbe plaintiff is not tbe owner of tbe property, that its value at tbe time of seizure was $600, its present value $300, and that tbe plaintiff is indebted to tbe defendant in tbe sum of $300. It was adjudged that tbe plaintiff recover $600 with interest less $300 to be credited as of tbe time of trial and that tbe recovery in favor of tbe plaintiff, excepting tbe sum of $50 is a lien upon the property described in tbe pleadings. Tbe question is wbetber tbe 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.  