
    
      Wilson against Finney.
    
    Where A. delfe, - Tered six sheep to *B., on án agreement that, at ttie end óf a year, B. would deliver A. an equal number of fehéep of equal •value, it was held that the property in the sheep was ¿hanged, and that B. was bound to deliver §ix sheep of.equal valué to A* at the expiration " of the year, although part of the sheep had' been taken under an attachment agaicstA.
    ,. IN ERROR,,on certiorari to a- justice’s, court. ' '
    Some time in June, -1812, the plaintiff in. error, who was-alsé ■plaintiff in the court below, delivered to, the defendant six sheep., in consideration, whereof the defendant promised and undertook-to return and deliver-to the .plaintiff, at the- expiration Of one : year, an equal' number of sheep, of'equal value,, and also-one-/ pound of wool per head lor each sheep. ‘The defendant had neglected to. deliver, the sheep according to his agreement.- It further, appeared that four df the sheep had-been given up. by the.defendant, .as the property of the plaintiff, on an-attachment ■issued against him, in favour of one of his creditors, oh the ere-' ditor indemnifying the defendant. A verdict and' judgment were giyen for the defendant in the court below.
   Per (Juriam.

' This judgment cannot be supported.,: -There is no Colour for-depriving the plaintiff of a recovery-for the value of two sheeps as there is no pretence that more than four ■were taken under the'attachment against him. But the plain til? vTas. entitled to recover for the whole number. The property in the sheep, delivered by the plaintiff, was changed, and duly vested -in the defendant. He was under no obligation to return the same. sheep,' but only those of equal value; They were at his .absolute, disposal and risk. - • . . ■

J udgment reversed.  