
    Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hill & Brother.
    Judgment; supported by evidence.
    
      Appeal from Linn Gi/rcuit Gowrt.
    
    Monday, June 9.
    Action to recover the value of certain personal property, alleged to belong to the plaintiff, which the defendants converted to their use. Trial by the court. Judgment for the plaintiff and defendants appeal.
    
      J. G. Davis, for appellants.
    
      Glark & Lynch, for appellee.
   Seevers, J.

— There was no finding of facts made by the court below. That the plaintiff at one time owned the property there is no doubt. The real controversy is whether one Bartleson was the agent of the plaintiff and had the power and authority to sell the property, and if so, whether the defendants purchased the property of him, as such agent, in the usual course of business. • To say the least, the evidence was conflicting. The finding cannot be said to be so against the evidence as to warrant the conclusion that it was the result of either passion or prejudice.

Areihmed.  