Replevin—Chattel Mortgage—Stipulation for Possession.—A stipulation in a chattel mortgage expressly giving the mortgagee a right of possession upon default of the mortgagor in the payment of the note or the interest is valid; and the mortgagor or his assignee, upon such default, is entitled to maintain replevin for the mortgaged property.

Id.—Maturity of Note and Mortgage before Trial—Return of Replevied Property not Required — Costs.—Where the note and the mortgage containing such stipulation for right of possession became mature before the trial, even if the defendant was entitled to the possession of the replevied property at the commencement of the action, the court should not decree the return thereof to the defendant at the trial, merely that it might again be replevied by the plaintiff, but should leave the possession of the property where it belongs, and give the defendant judgment for costs only.

Id.—Pleading—Aider of Complaint by Answer.—Where the complaint alleged that plaintiff was in possession of the property and entitled thereto on the day before the commencement of the action, and that defendant then wrongfully took possession of the property, and refused to return it upon demand, any defect therein is aided and cured by the answer taking issue upon plaintiff’s right of possession on the day named, or at any other time, and affirmatively averring that defendant is and at all of the times herein mentioned was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the property, which affirmative averments must be deemed denied.

Id.—Trial of Issues—Objection upon Appeal.—The defendant having gone to trial upon the theory that the title, or right of possession of the property, was in issue, cannot, upon appeal, for the first time be heard to say that there was no such issue.

Id.—Taking Possession of Property — Immaterial Matters.—The facts that, prior to the commencement of the action, plaintiff had gone to defendant’s lodging-house and taken possession of the property, and that the property was retaken by the defend- ' ant upon an order made by the police court, are immaterial matters having nothing to do with the right of possession of the property.

Id.—Evidence—Improper Examination by Court.—Where the defendant bad testified nothing about what occurred prior to the commencement of the action as to taking possession of the propei'ty, either upon direct or cross-examination, it was prejudicial error for the court, against the objection of the plaintiff, to question the defendant as to immaterial details of what occurred when plaintiff took possession of the property, which details could only tend improperly to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury against the plaintiff.