
    FORD v. THOMPSON.
    Where, in an action for personal property with damages for its detention, the verdict was for defendant, and subsequently the Court below made an order granting a new trial, from which order defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, giving an undertaking for damages and costs under the three hundred and forty-eighth section of the Practice Act, and then the Court below, against the objection of defendant, proceeded to try the- cause a second time, when plaintiff had verdict and judgment: Held, that the judgment must be reversed, because the Court below could not proceed with a second trial until the appeal from the order was determined.
    
      On appeal from an order granting a new trial in such case, the verdict being in favor of the defendant and appellant, an undertaking for damages and costs, according to section three hundred and forty-eight of the Practice Act, is sufficient to stay proceedings pending the appeal.
    Appeal from the First District.
    Suit against a Sheriff to recover certain personal property and damages for its detention, attached by him in an action against the husband of plaintiff—the complaint alleging the property to be the separate estate of the plaintiff. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and averred the property to belong to the husband, etc. Upon the second trial, the verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. Further facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
    Defendant appeals.
    
      S. F. Reynolds, for Appellant.
    
      A. P. Crittenden and S. Heydenfeldt, for Respondent.
   Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.

This cause was tried in the District Court in March last, and a verdict rendered for the defendant. In July following, an order was made granting a new trial, and from the order the defendant appealed to this Court. Pending the appeal, the Court below proceeded, against the objection of the defendant, and tried the cause a second time; and its action in this respect constitutes one of the grounds upon which a reversal of-the judgment rendered upon the last trial is sought.

We think the ground mentioned sufficient. The appeal taken from the order granting the new trial was perfected by an undertaking for damages and costs under the three hundred and forty-eighth section of the Practice Act. The verdict having been in favor of the appellant, no other undertaking was required to obtain a stay of proceedings pending the appeal. (See sec. 356.) It was error in the Court below to proceed with a second trial until that appeal was determined in this Court. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Ordered accordingly.  