
    8925.
    Mullis, sheriff, for use, v. Farmers Gin Company.
    Decided January 21, 1918.
    Trover; 'from city court of Eastman — Judge Eeese. May 10, 1917.
    An action of trover for certain bales of cotton was brought by Mullís, sheriff, for the use of Improved Guano Company, against Farmers Gin Company. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and the court directed a yerdict for the defendant. A new-trial was refused, and the plaintiff excepted. The agreed statement of facts was in substance as follows: On September 13, 1914, a mortgage fi. fa. in favor of Improved Guano Company, and a distress warrant in favor of another plaintiff, both against C. C. Adams, were levied “upon the cotton which is the subject-matter of this suit, which said cotton was found in the cotton warehouse of the Yancey Gin Company and the cotton warehouse of the Farmers Gin Company, where said cotton was levied upon and left there' properly tagged with notices of said levies.” The levy of the distress warrant was met by a claim filed on November 3, 1914, by J. C. Studstill, who gave a claim bond and a forthcoming bond, which the levying officer accepted, for the cotton claimed. The levy of the mortgage fi. fa. was not arrested by any proceeding, and the bales of cotton levied on “were advertised to be sold, and were offered for sale, and sold to the Improved Guano Company, but the sheriff was unable to deliver them to the purchaser at said sale, for the reason that said cotton had been removed from the warehouse where the same was stored at the time said levies were.made, without any authority from the Improved Guano Company, the plaintiff in the mortgage fi. fa., Or from the levying officer, except whatever authority was given by his taking and accepting the said claim bond and forthcoming bond.”
    
      0. J. FranTclin, for plaintiff, cited Miller v. Mattox, 118 Ga. 269.
    
      J. H. Milner, for defendant, cited Houser v. Williams, 84 Ga. .601.
   Bloodworms, J.

Under the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts in this ease, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.  