Kelly

. The judgment in this case can be so modified as to make it conform to the requirements of § 667 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To accomplish this, no other guide than the plain provisions of that section and the findings on file will be necessary.

The mode of describing the property recovered in the judgment is not one that we can conscientiously recommend as a precedent. But the description is not uncertain. Certum est quod certum reddi potest. The reference in the judgment to the finding, and in the finding to the complaint, for a description of the property, is inexcusably circuitous, but not ambiguous. There is but one complaint in the action. When the amended complaint was filed, the original ceased to be the complaint in the case. It was superseded by the amended complaint. (Barber v. Reynolds, 33 Cal. 497 .) The reference, therefore, is unmistakably to the amended complaint. We do not think that *194 any intelligent person will experience any insurmountable difficulty in segregating the articles enumerated in the first finding from those specified in the complaint.

The fourth finding is clearly erroneous. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the detention of the…

On Petition for Rehearing

Since the opinion in this ease was filed, it has been suggested to us by the counsel for respondent that we must have overlooked or not duly considered § 3336 of the Civil Code, and also Barrante v. Garratt, 50 Cal. 112 . We certainly did not overlook that section of the Civil Code, but thought then, as we still think, that it was not applicable to this case. This is an action to recover specific personal property. An inspection of the complaint cannot fail to impress that upon the mind of counsel. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant unlawfully took and unlawfully detains the property of the plaintiff, and demands judgment for a return of it. Section 627 of the Code *195 of Civil Procedure specifies what the verdict shall be in such a case; and § 667 of the same Code provides that, “In an action to recover the possession of personal property, judgment for the plaintiff may be for the possession or value thereof, in case a delivery cannot be had, and damages for the detention.”

The distinction between this action and one to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of personal property, is just as broad as that between the common-law actions of…