41  Kans.  211,  21  Pac.  93;  Tlmp  v.  Dockham,  32  Wis.  146;  though  de-
fendant does  not  connect  himself  with  that  title,  Siedenbach  v.  Riley,
111  N.  Y.  560,  19  N.  B.  275;  that  defendant  is  entitled  to  possessiont
of   the   animals    demanded,   under   contract    with    the    plaintiff    for
the  agistment  thereof,  which  contract  has  not  yet  expired,  Schrandt  v^
Young,  62  Neb.  255,  86  N.  W.  1085;  that  defendant  at  the  time  the
writ  issued  was  entitled  to  a  lien  on  the  goods,  Basset  v,  Haren,  61
Minn.  346,  63  N.  W.  713;  breach  of  a  warranty  under  which  a  machine
was  purchased  and  waiver  of  a  condition  requiring  notice  of  its  un-
satisfactory operation.  Advance  Co.  v.  Pierce,  74  Mo.  Ap.  676;  title  in
defendant,  Tlmp  v.  Dockham,  supra;  a  mortgage  from  the  common:
source,  of  title  senior  to  the  transfer  under  which  plaintiff  claims,,
Westbay  v.  Milligan,  74  Mo.  Ap.  179;  a  partnership  between  plaintiff  and
defendant  and  that  the  goods  are  partnership  property,  Downtain  v.  Ray»
Tex.  Civ.  Ap.  71  S.  W.  758;  the  Statute  of  Frauds,  Dixon  v,  Duke,  85  Ind.
434;  VanDyke  v.  Clark,  64  Hun.  636,  19  N.  Y.  Sup.  650;  that  plaintlfr^
title  originated  In  a  mortgage  executed  by  defendant  and  which,  the  de-
fendant being  illiterate,  was  falsely  read  to  him.  Piano  Co.  v.  Person^
12  S.  D.  448,  81  N.  W.  897;  Payne  v,  McCormick  Co.,  supra;  that  an
absolute  bill  of  sale,  relied  upon  by  the  plaintiff,  was  in  fact  given  as-
security,  Kerron  v.  Northern  PaciCc  Co.,  1  Wash.  241,  24  Pac.  445;  fraud
in  the  inception  of  the  plaintifTs  title,  Woodbrldge  v.  Dewltt,  51  Neb.
