
    Henry Eggers v. Seth F. Hanchett, for use, etc.
    
      Replevin — Action on Bond — Damages—Whether Excessive. ■
    
    In an action on a replevin bond, this court affirms the judgment of the court below, the evidence as to value being conflicting and the jury having been properly instructed.
    [Opinion filed December 7, 1888.]
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, J udge, presiding.
    Mr. A. B. Baldwin, for appellant.
    Mr. O. M. Hardy, for appellee.
   Gary, J.

Debt on replevin bond. The only complaint here is that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive, and the court erred in not granting a new trial, asked for that reason.

The property consisted of a multitude of articles of household furniture, in various stages of “ wear and tear,” and it is impossible for the court, by any review of the testimony, intelligently to fix a value upon it. The jury were correctly instructed that “market value” was the rule, yet it is quite probable they deemed that inadequate compensation to a householder wrongfully deprived of her furniture.

There was conflicting evidence as to the value, and the verdict of the jury is, under ordinary circumstances, conclusive.

Judgment affirmed.  