
    Leonard Olmstead vs. John G. Mansir.
    In an action to recover for the conversion of personal property, the admissions of the plaintiff as to the bargain under which he claimed to hold it are not to be excluded, when nothing further is shown but the existence of a written bill of parcels or schedule enumerating the articles purchased, and it does not appear that such bill of parcels was signed by the vendor.
    Tort for the conversion of a sleigh.
    " At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., “ the defendant testified that the plaintiff told him he had purchased the sleigh and other property of H. H. Holley. The plaintiff showed him a paper bill of sale or schedule, enumerating the articles purchased. The defendant did not know as there was any signature to the paper or schedule. Objection was then made to any further evidence as to the sale, and that what had been stated in evidence to it should be stricken out. The objection was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted; ” the verdict being for the defendant.
    The above is all that the bill of exceptions showed concerning the matter decided in this case, or how the question arose or became material.
    
      Ii. W. Bishop, for the plaintiff.
    
      A. J. Fargo, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

It does not appear that the paper writing

referred to in the exceptions was ever completed by the parties as a contract of sale, under which the plaintiff bought the property in question; but if it had so appeared, it seems to have been only a bill of parcels, and not such a written contract as would exclude paroi evidence of the terms of the bargain. There is, therefore, no ground for the only exception on which the plaintiff now insists.

Exceptions overruled.  