
    Taylor v. Dwyer.
    
      Action of Trover.
    
    1. Action of trover; sufficiency of complaint; judgment nil dicit. In an action of trover, a complaint containing a single count which “ claims of the defendant the sum of, to-wit, twenty-five hundred dollars in damages, for the unlawful conversion by defendant, during, to-wit, the years 1894 and 1895 of said amount of money entrusted to defendant by plaintiff as her agent,” sufficiently states a cause of action to support a judgment nil diet.
    
    Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery.
    Tried before the lion. A. D. Sayre.
    This was an action in trover brought by the appellee, Henrietta, J. Dwyer, against the appellant, Prank C. Taylor. The appeal is from a judgment ml dicit in favor of the plaintiff. Tlio* facts of the case necessary to an understanding Of the decision on the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion.'
    Jonx G. Winter and Jack Thorington, for appellant,
    cited 1 Chitty on Pleadings, 213 (16th ed.); Moody v. Kenner, 7 Port, 218; Orlen v. Butler, 5 B. & A. 652; Clark & Lindell on Torts, 187; Hoclge v. Lathrop, 1 Sanclf. (N. Y.) 46; Davis v. Thompson, 14 Atl. Rep. 169; Shrimpton v. Culver, 109 Midi. 577; Scott v. Alexander, 2 Sneacl (Tenn.) 650; 7 Rowland & T>owl. 286.
    DeYampert & Hausman, contra,
    
    cited Kiniston v. Moor, Orokes Oliarles 89; Hall v. Dean, Orokes Elizabeth 841; Farrand v. Hurlburt, 7 Minn. 477; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 766; Storey v. Nichols, 22 Tex. 87.
   DOWDELL, J.

The action is trover. The complaint contains a single count, which is as follows: “The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of to-wit: twenty-five hundred dollars in damages for the wrongful conversion by the defendant during to-wit: the years 1894 and 1895 of said amount of money entrusted to defendant by plaintiff as her agent.” A judgment ml elicit was rendered, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Whether the complaint states a substantial cause of action is practically the only question presented by the record for our consideration. The court is of the opinion and accordingly holds that after judgment nil dicit, the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action that will support the judgment.—Farrand v. Hurlburt, 7 Minn. 477; Kiniston v. Moore, Cro. Car. 89; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (1st ed.) 766 and note.

The judgment is affirmed.  