#### Maplewood Colliery Company, Plaintiff in Error v. Otto F. Siebenmann, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 18,114.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William E. Devbb, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 15, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action of replevin by Maplewood Colliery Company against Otto F. Siebenmann. From an alternative *453judgment requiring the delivery of the property to defendant or in default thereof that defendant recover two hundred and seventy dollars and costs, plaintiff brings error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Continuance, § 36 * -when properly denied'. Where a motion for a continuance is properly denied and a second motion prays for continuance upon the same ground, such second motion should also be denied, since to; grant it would be to permit an amendment of the first motion.

2. Appeal and errob, § 1035*—when assignment of error is necessary. Where there is no assignment of error because of the action of a court in proceeding to trial without a rule on the plaintiff to reply to several pleas filed, such plaintiff cannot object to ‘ such action.

3. Replevin, § 159*—when alternative judgment is proper. An alternative judgment for defendant is proper where a plaintiff replevied property which a defendant had performed work on and as to which work plaintiff was indebted to defendant for.

Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for plaintiff in error.

William Mannhardt, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.