¶1This is somewhat a novel case. We are not asked to reverse, but to reform the judgment. We do not think it needs any reformation.
¶2John Burlacher, the appellant, was an intervenor in the case, as well as Fanny Watson, the appellee. He averred in his pleading that he was in possession of the property claimed by the appellee.
¶3The jury found the property belonged to her; and under a prayer for general relief the judgment against him, to surrender the property or pay for it, was right and proper, and it is therefore affirmed.
¶4Aeeirmed.