¶1(nem. con.) instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that Withers agreed to sell and transfer the goods in the declaration mentioned to the plaintiffs, upon consideration that the plaintiffs would, at his request, become security for him in a replevy-bond to replevy the said goods, which were then held by a distress for rent, and in further consideration, that they would place the overplus of such goods, after satisfying the replevy-bond, to the credit of the said Withers in their private account against him, and further, that the plaintiffs did become his security accordingly, and are ready to place the said overplus to his credit, as aforesaid, as soon as such overplus can be ascertained; —the plaintiffs, upon becoming-security, as aforesaid, had such a general property in the said goods as will enable them to maintain this action of trover, although the plaintiffs never have had the actual possession in fact of the said goods.
¶2The jury found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions, and a writ of error; but the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the United States. [Cooke v. Woodrow] 5 Cranch [9 U. S.] 13.