Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/236

 Cobbey on Replevin, § § 977, 978 and 979; Hamer v. Hathaway, 33 Cal. 117; Blue Valley Bank v. Clement, 30 N W. Rep. 64. In replevin the value of each item of property should be found separately, as the whole may be returned or a part only in satisfaction of the judgment pro tanto. Cobbey on Replevin, § 1063. Under an attachment the sheriff has no right to make use of the property, and no right to damage for being deprived of its use. Tandler v. Saunders, 22 N. W. Rep. 271; Broadwell v. Paradice, 81 Ill. 474; McArthur v. Howett, 72 Il. 359; Cobbey on Replevin, § 895.

The value of property at the time of the trial should be found instead of its value at the time of its taking. Rowley v. Gibbs, 14 Johns. 385; Tuck v. Moses, 58 Me. 361; Boylston v. Davis, 70 N. C. 483; Burkeholder v. Rudrow, 19 Mo. App. 60; Mix v. Kepner, 81 Mo. 93; Allen v. Judson, 71 N. Y. 76; Pierce v. Vandike, 6 Hill 613; Brewster v. Silliman, 38 N. Y. 423-9.

Goodwin & Van Pelt and ''Geo. D. Emery'', for respondent.

The mortgage contains no description of the property by which it could be identified. No presumption arises from the execution of the chattel mortgage, that the mortgagor owns the property— nor that such property is in existence. Warner v. Wilson, 73 Iowa, 719, 36 N. W. Rep. 719.

The mortgage must not be indefinite and uncertain. “It must indicate, suggest and direct inquiry whereby the property can be identified.” Griffiths v. Wheeler, 2 Pac. Rep. 842; Smith v. McLean, 24 lowa 322; Tolbert v. Horton, 33 Minn. 104. The individual description of each separate item or class of chattels is fatally defective. Barr v. Cannon, 69. Ia. 20, 28 N. W. Rep. 413; Eggert v. White, 13 N. W. Rep. 426; Pennington v. Jones, 10 N. W. Rep. 274; Warner v. Wilson, 36 N. W. Rep. 719; Hayes v. Wilcox, 17 N. WM. Rep. 110; Smith v. McLean, 24 1a. 322. As to the separator no clue of identification is furnished by the mortgage. Leffel v. Miller, 7 So. Rep. 324 Kellogg v. Anderson, 40 Minn. 207; Armsby v. Nolan, 28 N. W. Rep. 569; Rhutassel v. Stevens, 27 N. W. Rep.