
    [No. 6252.]
    SIDNEY LACEY v. PRUDENT BEAUDRY.
    Conversion of Property by Injunction—Erroneous Instruction.—L, as tenant of B, placed certain fixtures upon the real estate of B, and B subsequently sued out an injunction to prevent L from removing the fixtures. Upon a showing by L the injunction was dissolved, and thereafter L sued B for damages caused by the injunction. At the trial the Court instructed the jury that the mere issuance and service of the injunction was a conversion of the fixtures by B: held, that the instruction was erroneous.—[Beporter.]
    Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, Los Angeles County.
    Trover for the conversion of certain fixtures and improvements placed upon a lot in Los Angeles. The plaintiff entered into possession of the lot under a conditional agreement to purchase the same from the defendant, as he alleges; that he should make certain improvements, which, in case the sale should not be made, he should have the right to remove. Subsequently, the defendant sued out an injunction against the plaintiff, alleging in his complaint that Lacey, the plaintiff herein, was about to remove the fixtures, and praying that he be enjoined from so doing. The preliminary injunction was granted, but upon the showing made by Lacey the injunction was dissolved. Thereupon this action was commenced for damages alleged to have been sustained in the conversion by Beaudry of the fixtures. At the trial the Court instructed the jury as follows: “ That the said Beaudry, by the issuance and service of said injunction, converted to his own use the fixtures and improvements in plaintiff’s answer in said injunction suit mentioned and described.”
    The verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Howard, Bronson & Howard, for Appellant.
    
      F. Ganahl and Thomas H. Smith, for Respondent.
   By the Court :

Without considering the defective averments of the complaint, it is enough to say that among the many errors occurring at the trial, one of the most prominent was the giving of the second instruction requested by plaintiff, which was to the effect that the defendant Beaudry, by the mere “ issuance and service ” of an injunction, converted to his own use certain property on premises then in the possession of the present plaintiff.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Bemittitur forthwith.  