These exceptions are groundless. 1. The evidence of delivery of the chattels included in the mortgage, and of the retention of possession of them by the mortgagee, was plenary. Delivery to and possession by an agent are the same in legal effect as if made to and held by the principal. The agency was clearly proved.
2. So was the evidence of the conversion of the property. Every tortious taking with intent to apply chattels to the use of the taker or some other , person than the owner is a conversion.
3. Both defendants were liable. It was not necessary in order to charge them to show that each actually participated in seizing and removing the property. It was sufficient to prove that bolt
jExceptions overruled.