title and right to the possession which would be essential if the suit were in replevin." We confess to a total inability to dis- cover any force or merit in the appellant's objection. A breach of the conditions of the mortgage is alleged and shown, and by the express terms of the instrument the mortgagees are "hereby authorized, either by themselves or agent, to enter upon the premises where the said property may be, and remove and sell the same." This provision gave the mortgagees the right upon a breach to "remove and sell." The words employed plainly import that the mortgagees may take possession, and we think they are incompatible with any other fair construction. Having the right to the possession upon a breach of the conditions of the mortgage, and a breach 'having occurred, the plaintiffs were in a position to maintain an action for the value of the property as against the defendant, who had unlawfully taken and con- verted it to their own use. The judgment will be affirmed. All concur.
SCOTT N. SANFORD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DULUTH &
DAKOTA ELEVATOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
Chattel Mortgages-Conversion of Property by Third Party -Demand-Sale by Mortgagor-Review on Appeal.
1. The plaintiff held a chattel mortgage given by K. upon wheat, and the mortgage was filed in the proper office. After the filing, and while the debt secured by the, mortgage was due and unpaid, K. sold and delivered the wheat to the defendant, the elevator company, and the company received the wheat into one of the warehouses located in the county where the wheat was sold and where the mortgage was filed. A warehouse receipt for the wheat was made out in the name of K., and by his direction it was delivered to Bell, the defendant, who claimed the wheat. Defendant cashed the warehouse receipt, and took it from Bell. There was no evidence that the elevator company mixed the wheat with other grain, or sold it, or any part of it. Plaintiff sues for the value of the wheat, and alleges that the defendant had refused to deliver the wheat upon his demand therefor, and had un- lawfully converted the wheat. At the trial no demand was shown, and the only evidence of conversion was the sale, delivery, and payment, as above stated. At the close of the testimony the elevator company requested the trial court to direct a verdict in its favor, upon the ground
