
    Haley vs. Rowan.
    An action of detinue will lie, although the defendant may have parted with the possession of the property before demand made and suit brought.
    This was an action of detinue brought by Rowan against Haley; plea, non-detinet. Upon trial it appeared that the plaintiff, Rowan, had loaned a mule to Henry Rowan to make a crop; Henry disposed of the mule to Haley. Demand was made of Haley of the mule, and.it was not delivered; whereupon this action was brought. Haley had sold the mule before '.a demand was made or suit brought. The judge charged-the jury, that detinue would lie, although the defendant had parted with the possession of the property before the demand was made and suit brought. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff; a new trial was moved for and refused, and judgment given on the verdict, from which defendant, having excepted, prosecuted an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court'.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, Rowan, had loaned the mule to Henry Rowan to make a crop; he disposed of it to Haley. Demand was made of Haley, and this action brought. The question raised is, whether the action of detinue will lie, when the defendant had parted with the possession before demand and suit brought. The court charged in the affirmative of the proposition. On examination of authorities, we are of opinion the charge was right. 1 Chitty on Pleading, 120, 121, title Detinue: 1 Washington’s Rep. 12: Camer and Norwood, 464: 1 Hay. 12: 3 Starkie’s Evidence, 493.

Judgment affirmed.  