If the mule levied upon in this case was the mule included in the plaintiff’s mortgage, the judgment should have been in favor, of the plaintiff; on the other hand, if it was not the same mule, the judgment for the claimant should stand. The case, therefore, turns solely upon a question of identity, which is essentially a question of fact; and, there being evidence pro and con, this- court has no jurisdiction to overrule the finding of the trial court on this issue, although the evidence does seem strongly to preponderate against the finding.

Judgment affirmed.