
    Rufus K. Been, et al. vs. Taliferro F. Lindsey.
    Where a verdict has been rendered for the plaintiff in execution upon the trial of right of property, the judgment of the court must he in the alternative as in det-inue, for the specific property or its value as assessed by the jury.
    In error from the circuit court of Choctaw county.
    The defendant in error having obtained a judgnmnf^ at law against Thomas N. Davis, levied an execution on a horse, as the property of Davis. One Launcelot Chum, made an affidavit claiming the horse, which had been levied on by the sheriff under the execution, in favor of the defendant in error, and gave a claimant’s bond; on which affidavit and bond, at the return term of the execution, the parties made up an issue to try the right of property. This issue was submitted to a jury, and by them a verdict was found for-the plaintiff in the execution. They assessed the value of the horse at sixty-five dollars. Upon this finding the court pronounced judgment in these words: “It is therefore considered by the court that the plaintiff in execution, recover of the said claimant (the horse levied upon, if to be Had,) and his securities, Rufus K. Been, and Henry Loggins, the said sum of sixty-five dollars and his costs in this behalf expended, &c.” '
    This writ of error is prosecuted by the claimant of the property.
    No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in error.
    
      John Steele, for defendant in error.
    In this case, no errors having been assigned, and the record having been on the files of this court since the 30th day of December, 1842. The defendant in error, by his attorney, now.here submits to this court, that there is no error, except an informal entry of a judgment in the court below, upon the finding of the jury in his favor, which informal entry the defendant prays may be rendered by this honorable court in legal form, &c.
   Mr. Justice Thaci-ieR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was writ of error to the circuit court of Choctaw county.

It was the trial of the right of property seized in execution. The error in this case is in the form of the judgment, which is for the specific property, and against the securities in the claimant’s bond for the trial, for the value of a horse as assessed by a jüry. The verdict is formal and regular. As has been before decided by this court, the judgment, under a verdict for plaintiffs in execution, should be in the alternative, as in detinue, for the speftfi^ property or its value, as assessed by the jury.

The judgment is reversed.  