
    Perdue et al. vs. Powell & Murphey.
    [This case was argued at the last term, and the decision reserved.]
    Powell & Murphey sued John Perdue and his wife for two mules, and the jury found for the plaintiffs. The defendants moved for a new trial which was refused, and that refusal is the .error complained of.
    
      The presiding judge declines in express terms to certify to the truth of the ground's of the motion for a new trial. So that the sole question we can consider is whether the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
    The plaintiffs introduced in evidence a bill of sale to the mules signed by Perdue and wife but introduced no bond to reconvey, and this seems to be the ground on which defendants rest their exception, to the verdict as being against evidence and law. From the other-evidence in the case it appears that the bill of sale was made to-secure a note which had not been paid, and that it was intended to pass title until the debt was paid. The defendants could have tendered the balance due on the note and successfully defended the action by an equitable plea. In the absence of such defense, the plaintiffs showed enough to- entitle them to recover without reference to the Oode, sections 1969, 1970.
    The case of Griggs vs. Stripling. 59 <?«., 500, is wholly unlike this. See Carswell vs. Iiartridge, 55 Qa., 412Lackey vs. Bosiimak, 54 Ga., 45 - West vs. Bermell, 59 Ga.,. 507.
   Jackson, Justice.  