#### Anna J. Smolen, Defendant in Error, v. Michael Ziemba and Mrs. Michael Ziemba, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 20,677.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 6, 1915.

*168Abstract of the Decision.

1. Trover and conversion, § 30 * —when demand for property alleged to he converted is necessary. In an action for the conversion of a piano, where the evidence showed that the defendants came into possession of such piano lawfully, there being no actual conversion in the form of a claim of ownership, the sale or abuse or destruction of the property, or acts amounting to an assertion of dominion over the property inconsistent with the owner’s right, plaintiff was compelled to rely upon proof of a demand for the property and refusal by the defendants.

2. Trover and conversion, § 39 * —when conversion not shown. In an action for the conversion of a piano, evidence held insufficient to show a demand for such piano- and a refusal by the defendants to comply with such demand.

Statement of the Case.

Proceeding in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Anna J. Smolen against Michael Ziemba and Mrs. Michael Ziemba, for the unlawful taking and converting to their own use of a piano belonging to the plaintiff, of the value of $175. The defendants contended that the piano was kept by them at the plaintiff’s request and that the plaintiff had refused to remove it when requested. Upon the trial below, before the court without a jury, the court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and assessed her damages in the sum of $150 and costs, for which amount judgment was entered, to reverse which defendants have sued out this writ of error.

Jones, Kerner & Posvic, for plaintiffs in error; De Witt C. Jones, of counsel.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.