this term,) and cases there cited. The order in which the proof was offered might be open to criticism, but that matter is peculiarly in the discretion of the trial court. The verdict finds the plaintiff entitled to the possession of the property, and the value thereof. It is urged that this is entirely insufficient to support the judgment for plaintiff, in that it does not pass upon the question of ownership. Some early Wisconsin cases are cited to support the claim. These cases for the most part were decided when the practice in replevin cases was quasi criminal, and the plea of “not guilty” put in by defendant put in issue every material allegation in the complaint. Ownership, both general and special, was thus put in issue; also the right of possesion, as well as the wrongful taking or wrongful detention. It is elementary that the verdict must respond to all the issues; and this is the same whether the issues are raised by plea of “not guilty” or specifically by answer. But in this case there was, under the pleadings, but the one issue. Each party claimed absolute ownership. Neither claimed any right, except such as flow from and are incident to such ownership. Under the pleadings, ownership necessarily carried with it the right of possession, and the party entitled to possession was necessarily the owner. The verdict settled the only issue in the case, and was sufficient. Krause v. Cutting, 32 Wis. 688; Everit v. Bank, 13 Wis. 468; Faulkner v. Meyers, 6 Neb. 415; Underwood v. White, 45 Ill. 438; Clark v. Heck, 17 Ind. 281; Payne v. June, 92 Ind. 253.
Judgment affirmed. All concur.
(55 N. W. Rep. 758.)
