
    Lewis Wheeler versus Isaac Train.
    Where in replevin against an officer who had attached certain chattels as the property of A, it appeared by a special verdict, that the chattels belonged to the plaintiff,  but tnat, when attached, they were in A’s possession under a lease, which had since expired, judgment was entered for the defendant for costs only, and not for a return.
    Replevin for certain articles of household furniture. Plea, that the property was in J. W. and that the defendant, as a deputy sheriff, attached the furniture at the suit of a creditor of J. W. Replication, that the property was in the plaintiff; and issue thereon. Upon a special verdict it appeared, that the general property was in the plaintiff, but that at the time of the attachment the furniture was in the possession of J. W. under a lease, which expired before the verdict was drawn up. The question was, what judgment should be rendered.
    
      Fay and Rand, for the plaintiff,
    to show, that as it appeared of record that the defendant had no longer any title to the furniture, he could not have judgment for a return, but only for costs, cited Allen v. Darby, 1 Show. 99; 7 Ed. 4, f. 28 and 29 ; Vin. Abr. Avowry, P; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 K 12; Vernon v. Wynne, 1 H. Bl. 24 ; Hopkins v. Shrole, 1 Bos. & Pul. 382.
    
      Hoar, contra,
    
    claimed only costs.
    
      
       See 3 Pick. 255, S. C.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

Let judgment be entered for costs only, and not for a return.  