THE  WRIT. 427

draw  a  satisfactory  conclusion  from  these  cases  the  diflBculty  lies
in  the  fact,  that  in  the  early  cases  the  plaintiff  in  replevin  was
always  regarded  as  the  owner  of  the  property. The  writ  did  not
lie  to  try  title,  but  to  enable  a  plaintiff  whose  goods  had  been
wrongfully  distrained  to  recover  them. Of  course,  in  all  such
oases,  the  owner  then,  as  now,  took  his  own  property. The  lien
of  the  distrainer  was  gone:^  The  owner  might  sell  and  convey  a
good  title  as  though  they  had  never  been  taken  from  him. A
large  majority  of  the  cases,  however,  now  are  brought,  not  for
the  purpose  of  recovering  a  pled(]^  wrongfully  distrained,  but  for
the  purpose  of  testing  ownership ;  this  is  the  principal^  if  not  the
only  question  in  dispute ;  and  it  does  not  by  any  means  follow
that  tiie  plaintiff  who  acquires  possession  of  goods  by  means  of
his  writ  of  replevin  has  any  title  to  the  property,^  and  if  he  has
no  title  he  can  convey  none  by  sale. He  is,  however,  invested
with  possession  and  the  outward  insignia  of  ownership,  has  given
bond  to  his  opponent,  which  in  contemplation  of  law  is  sufficient
to  indemnify  the  latter  against  loss,  whatever  may  be  the  result
of  the  litigation,  or  whatever  may  become  of  the  subject  of  the
contest. The  plaintiff  is  also  under  obligation  to  return  the
property  if  he  fails  in  his  suit,  in  as  good  order  as  when  taken
upon  his  WTit,  or  to  pay  its  value  in  case  of  failure  to  do  so ;  with
these  responsibilities  he  has  the  right  to  use  all  reasonable  means
to  protect  himself  from  loss.**

§  480. The  same. It  would,  therefore,  seem  that  in  cases
where  the  property  is  of  a  nature  such  as  will  be  likely  to  perish
or  seriously  diminish  in  value  within  the  time  which  will  probably
be  required  for  proper  litigation,  the  plaintiff  will  be  justified  in
selling,  consuming  or  disposing  of  it. In  case  he  does  not  do  so
the  fact  that  the  property  has  perished  will  not  relieve  him  from
his  liability  on  the  bond. 