
    JULIANA SPERR, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN BIRCH, APPELLANT.
    Submitted March 24, 1919
    Decided May 15, 1919.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “This is an action of replevin, brought by the plaintiff to recover the possession of an automobile. The case was tried with a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed. There is no claim set up, that the car did not belong to the plaintiff, but the controversy is, that she lost title by negligence or estoppel. The defendant specifies three defences, with respect to which he is dissatisfied in point of law, viz., because the trial court refused to nonsuit or direct a verdict, because the plaintiff was estopped to deny the right of one George Leister to sell and dispose of the automobile in question. These questions are all matters of fact, on which the jury have found adversely to the appellant’s claim. There is an abundance of evidence in the record to justify the jury’s findings. The judgment cannot be set aside on any of the above grounds. Faux v. Willett, 69 N. J. L. 52.' The judgment of the District Court of Perth Amboy is affirmed.”
    Eor the appellant, Edmund A. Hayes.
    
    Eor the respondent, Andrew J. Wight.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance■ — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.  