
    Turner v. Brooks and another.
    Where suit was brought to recover damages for the wrongful conversion by the defendants to their own use of certain property belonging to the plaintiff, and after the statement of the plaintiff’s name in the petition tho words “who sues for the benefit of Philip Dargan” were inserted: Held, That those words had no legal effect on the riahts of the parties to the suit; they might he treated as mere surplusage, and did not vitiate the substantial averments in the petition.
    Appeal from Brazoria. This suit was brought by the appellant to recover damages for the wrongful conversion by the defendants to their own use of a certain mare, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of one hundred and fifty dollars. After the statement of the name of the plaintiff in the commencement of the petition the words were inserted “ who sues for the use and benefit of Philip Dargan.”
    There was a demurrer to the petition, which the court sustained and dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      P. McGreal, for appellant.
   Wheeler, J.

The ground upon which the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case appears to have been the insertion in the petition of the words “ who sues for the use,” &c., after the name of the plaintiff.

These words were inappropriate in this case, and should have been omitted. But they were inoperative, having no legal effect upon the rights of the parties to the suit, and may be treated as mere surplusage, which does not vitiate.

They did not have the effect to vitiate the substantial averments of the petition. We do not perceive that the petition is obnoxious to any fatal objection, and are of the opinion that the court erred in dismissing the ease. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.  