#### Charles Seabury v. Amos M. Ross et al.

Replevin—damages against plaintiff, beyond nominal damages, must abe proved. Where the plaintiff fails in an action of replevin, in the absence of proof of actual damages, the defendant is entitled to nominal damages only.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Sabin D. Poterbaugh, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of replevin, brought by Charles Seaburv, against Amos M. Ross and D. D. Ross, before a justice of the peace, for a mare, and taken by appeal to the circuit court. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict for the defendants, and finding that Amos M. Ross was the owner of the property, and assessing the damages at $117. The defendants remitted $67, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants for $50 damages. There was no proof of any damages. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. H. B. Hopkins and Messrs. Cratty Brothers, for the appellant.

Messrs. Clark & Kettell, for the appellees.

Mr. Justice Soholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This judgment must be reversed, for the reason that there is no evidence in the record authorizing the damages assessed by the jury. The effect of the mere finding against appellant is, to authorize nominal damages only. If damages were sustained beyond that amount, it was incumbent on the *534appellees to prove them. The jury, in the absence of evidence, had no right to assume that appellees had sustained other than nominal damages.

We perceive no other error in the record.

Judgment reversed.