C. v. Hill & Co. v. Marriner

Per Curiam,

This was an action of replevin for certain shop fixtures. At the trial the court directed a verdict for defendant, the appellant, but subsequently entered judgment for the plaintiff, n. o. v. We affirm the judgment, adopting the following extract from the opinion of the learned court below: “The facts were not disputed and the sole question for determination is whether the plaintiff or the defendant is entitled to the property in question. On February 23, 1921, the plaintiff made a written proposition to furnish and install certain fixtures in the meat market of the defendant Sook,…