Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Mandarin Co.

The following opinion was filed June 6, 1922:

Jones, J.

It i.s urged by defendant that the amount claimed to be due on the notes is not the true amount. But the jury and the trial court found that the plaintiff had complied in all respects with the contract and that the amount due was $412.76. We have examined the testimony ' and are satisfied this was the time amount.

The only remaining question is one of law/ namely, whether, after having replevied the piano, the plaintiff can recover from the defendant the amount which' was due at the time the replevin action was commenced.

Defendant’s counsel…