The other form of trespass against personalty consists in its destruction or damage. As has already been stated, there must be some actual damage to sustain an action of this character. Thus in Marentille vs. Oliver,18 which was an action against the defendant for striking the plaintiff's horse, the Court said: "I think it was incumbent on the plaintiff below to state an injury done to the horse, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage; that he was, in consequence of the blow, bruised or wounded and unable to perform service; or that the plaintiff had been put to expense in curing him, or the like. All the precedents of declarations for injuries done to domestic animals, as far as my recollection goes, are in that way."

9 State vs. Omaha National Bank,

59 Neb 483

10 Ruskin vs. Thorpe, 88 Ga., 779.

11 Olds vs. Chicago Open Board of

Trade, 33 111., App., 445. 12 Carpenter vs. American Bid., etc., Asso., 54 Minn., 403, 40

Am. St. Rep., 345. 13 Boobier vs. Boobier, 39 Me., 406.

14 Spooner vs. Manchester, 133

Mass., 270, 43 Am. Rep., 514;

Drake vs. Shorter, 4 Esp., 165.

15 Burnside vs. Twitchell, 32 N. H.,

390. In Lowry vs. Walker, 4 Vt., 76, it was held that the fact that a person not in possession of a chattel attacked by the sheriff forbade the sheriff to 6ell the property did not constitute conversion.

16 Byrne vs. Stout, 15 111., 180.

17 Kenney vs. Ranney, 96 Mich., 617; Cheshire R. Co. vs. Foster, 51 N. H., 490; Rake-straw vs. Floyd, 54 S. Car., 288.