
    Eliphalet S. Patterson vs. Elbridge G. Dudley.
    Under a declaration for the conversion of “ one grindstone,” the plaintiff may recover the value of the frame in which the grindstone was placed, if it was essential to its use and taken away with it.
    Action of tort for the conversion of “ one grindstone.” At the trial in the superior court of Suffolk'at May term 1857, it appeared that the grindstone was set in a frame in the plaintiff’s hop, which was taken away with it. The defendant contended that the plaintiff under his declaration could only recover for the value of the stone alone, without the frame and hangings. But Huntington, J. instructed the jury that if the frame and hangings of the grindstone were necessary for its use and composed a part of it, the plaintiff might recover for the value of all. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff accordingly, and also found that the hangings and frame belonged to the stone. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      F. W. Sawyer, for the defendant.
    
      S. G. Clarke, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

The question of the extent and meaning of the word “ grindstone,” was a question of fact, which was rightly submitted to the jury under proper instructions and determined by their verdict. Exceptions overruled.  