Doot

The hearing by this court was granted herein after decision by the district court of appeal in and for the third appellate district, wherein the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, in order that further consideration might be given by this court to the question presented upon this appeal. Upon such further consideration this court is satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the appellate tribunal written by Mr. Justice Pullen, pro tempore, and therefore hereby adopt the same as the decision of this court. Such decision reads as follows:

“ This is an action in conversion and there is no doubt in cases of this class as to the burden of proof, for proof of the deposit and failure of the bailee to redeliver in accordance with the terms of the contract makes a prima facie case and the burden, therefore, is upon the warehouseman to excuse the failure to make such redelivery. (Taussig v. Bode and Haslett, 134 Cal. 260 [ 86 Am. St. Rep. 250 , 5 L. R. A. 774, 66 Pac. 259 ].) The evidence in this case fails to disclose any justification by the warehouseman for his failure to deliver and there is no question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and…