Many illustrations are given in the law reports of cases involving a sale by one in possession of the goods, where the question arises as to his rights to convey, or the rights of an innocent purchaser to acquire by purchase, the title to the property. An interesting case appears in the Michigan reports,22 of which the main facts were as follows: One Samuel Manassau, brought an action to replevin a horse; Manassau on securing the horse on the writ, took it to another county, and sold it to defendant. McGlora Manassau, being unable to obtain the property under an execution, in Wayne County, went to Washtenaw County, where the property was and made a demand on defendant for its possession, and upon his refusal, brought this action of replevin. Verdict and judgment went for the plaintiff. Samuel Manassau did not, by his action of replevin, obtain the title to the property. The Michigan replevin statute expressly provides for a return of the property to the defendant if he so elects. The bond also expressly provides for a return of the property. These provisions of the law were idle, if it were the intention to give to the plaintiff in a replevin suit the absolute right of disposal of the property. Although the property is delivered to the plaintiff, still it remains in the custody of the law, and if judgment be for the defendant he may recover it by execution if found within the jurisdiction of the defendant, if not then by replevin,

22 87 Michigan, 543.