
    [No. 3,895.]
    WILLIAM S. FREEBORN v. DAVID C. NORCROSS.
    Damages in Replevin.—In an action to recover the possession of personal property, or the value thereof if delivery cannot be had, and damages for the detention, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in a gross sum, and also damages in the form of interest on the value of the property from the time it was taken.
    Reveiw of Error in Law.—Alleged errors of law in giving instructions to a jury, cannot be reviewed unless presented by a bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, County of San Luis Obispo.
    Action to recover the undivided half of a threshing machine, commenced August 21, 1872. The defendant was sheriff, and levied on the same as the property of William Freeborn, by virtue of an attachment placed in his hands, issued by a justice of the peace, in the suit of Goldtree Brothers v. William, Freeborn. The trial was had before a jury, May 13, 1873. The transcript contained the judgment roll, and what purported to be instructions given by the Court to the jury, but no bill of exceptions. The defendant appealed from the judgment.
    The other facts are stated in the opinion.
   By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

This is an action to recover the possession of certain personal property, or the valve thereof in case a delivery cannot be had, and damages for the detention. The jury rendered a verdict for the value of the property, with “legal interest” thereon from the time of the seizure by the sheriff to the date of the verdict; and damages in the sum of $50.

Section 200 of the Practice Act (which was in force when the action was brought), authorizes the recovery of damages for the detention of personal property. But a party is not entitled to a gross sum for such damages and to interest upon the value of the property from the time it was taken. Interest in such case is given for damages, and if allowed in addition to a gross sum for damages, it would amount to double damages.

The alleged errors of law in the instructions given at the plaintiff’s request, cannot be reviewed, because neither the instructions nor any exceptions thereto, are presented by a bill of exceptions.

Cause remanded, with direction to modify the judgment so that the plaintiff shall recover the sum of $375, with interest thereon (the rate specified in Section 1,920 of the Civil Code), from the date of the judgment. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.  