Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Clara.

In September, 1868, the plaintiff took a lease of five years of certain premises upon the lands of the New Almadén Quicksilver Company, in the county of Santa Clara. After taking the lease, he erected a wooden building on the premises, and used the same in the butchering business. The building cost about eighteen hundred dollars. There was a clause in the lease that the plaintiff was to be permitted to remove from the company’s lands, at the expiration of the term, all the buildings he erected thereon. Before the expiration of his lease, in September, 1873, the plaintiff procured an extension of his term until the 1st day of January, 1874. After the 1st of September, 1873, the plaintiff removed to San Jose, a few miles distant from New Almadén. On the 23d of December, 1873, the defendant took possession of the building, and refused to surrender it to the plaintiff, although demand was made before the 1st day of January, 1874. This action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of the building. The court found the following facts in relation to the value of the building:

“16th. The New Almadén Mining Company are the exclusive owners of all the land for a distance of over three miles from the site of this building. The country is very rough and broken. The cost of removing this building from the lands of the company would be more than its value when removed. If the building had been torn down and taken to pieces, the value of the old material would have been one hundred and fifty dollars over the cost of taking it to pieces.

“The value of the building to a person desiring a building of that character, and having the right to maintain and use the same on the place occupied by this building, would have been four hundred dollars.

“The market value of the building, as it was then situated, under the conditions and circumstances above set forth, was, before the 23d of December, and from then to the present time, two hundred dollars.

“To place upon this lot a building of the character, condition and capacity that this was upon the 23d of December, 1873, would cost five hundred dollars.”

The court had previously found that the defendant converted the property on the 23d of December, 1873. The conclusions of law from the findings were that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for two hundred dollars, and judgment was rendered for that sum, without costs.

The bill of exceptions assigned as errors:

I. The conclusion of law that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for only two hundred dollars.

2.. The ordering of judgment for said two hundred dollars.

3. The-entering of final judgment for said two hundred dollars, because the said findings of fact show that plaintiff was entitled to judgment for a greater sum than three hundred dollars, and costs of suit.

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment.