#### Anton J. Cermak for use of C. J. McCarty, Appellee, v. Guggenheim Laundry Machinery Company and Charles T. Luckow, Appellants.

Gen. No. 21,923.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Replevin, § 161 * —when judgment conclusive as to ownership of goods. As between the parties to an action on a replevin bond, the question of ownership of the goods is res adjudicata settled by the proceedings in the replevin suit.

2. Replevin, § 165*—when suing out of writ of retorno habendo not condition precedent to maintenance of action on bond. It is not incumbent on plaintiff in suit in replevin bond to sue out a writ of retorno habendo as a condition precedent to such suit, the goods should have been returned in accordance with the judgment in the replevin suit.

3. Costs, § 73*—when expense of additional abstract filed by plaintiff may not be taxed to defendant. Where plaintiff filed an additional abstract of record and defendant’s abstract contained all that was necessary, expense of such additional abstract cannot be taxed as costs against defendant.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 7, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action on replevin bond by Anton J. Cermak, for the use of C. J. McCarty, plaintiff, against the Guggenheim Laundry Machinery Company and Charles T. Luckow, defendants. From a judgment for the penalty of the bond and for damages for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for appellants.

E. S. Hartman, for appellee.

*

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

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.