The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants on the fourteenth day of February, 1925. The defendants served and filed notice of appeal on the fourteenth day of April, 1925. The undertaking was regular in form, but executed by the defendants The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, a corporation, as surety also.

We know of no law that permits a surety company, against whom judgment is returned as a defendant, to be its own surety on appeal. The undertaking is insufficient, but the defendants having tendered a sufficient bond with The Detroit Fidelity and Surety Company of Michigan as its surety, the motion will be overruled and the latter undertaking will be accepted and filed. Motion Overruled.

On the Merits.

Defendants claim the complaint is defective in this, that it does not allege in proper form and manner the breach of the redelivery bond. The complaint alleges the giving of the redelivery bond “and that the defendants herein wholly failed, refused and neglected to redeliver said personal property to this plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the undertaking above set forth, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked exhibit ‘A’ and has wholly failed, refused and neglected to pay the judgment awarded the plaintiff in said action and are in default under said undertaking.” This allegation sets forth the facts constituting the breach. It was the duty of the defendants when the judgment of the Supreme Court was entered in the Circuit Court to seek out the plaintiff and either deliver the *466 automobile to plaintiff in substantially the same condition in which it was when defendant took it from the sheriff or pay to plaintiff the amount of said judgment: Capital Lumbering Co. v. Learned, 36 Or. 544, 548 (59 Pac. 454, 78 Am. St. Rep. 792). There is an allegation in the complaint that the automobile had so deteriorated that it was worthless. This allegation is an averment of fact.

The original case for the recovery of the possession of said automobile was regularly set to be heard in the Circuit Court ón March 5, 1924. Notice was sent to attorneys in accordance with the practice of that court. For some reason neither the defendants nor their attorneys appeared. Plaintiff proceeded to put in his evidence but before judgment was entered defendants asked permission to appear and present their case. This was permitted on condition that plaintiff would not have to recall his witnesses but that a statement of the evidence adduced might be made and incorporated in the record. A stipulation to that effect was entered into and appears in the record brought here. Defendants took no exception at the trial to the evidence as thus stated by the attorney for plaintiff and confirmed by the court. For that reason defendants are in no position to base error upon the action of the court admitting said statement as evidence. It was in the court’s discretion to allow defendants to appear after they had defaulted when the case was regularly set for trial. The court had a right to annex conditions to its order permitting defendants thereafter to appear and open the case. Defendants consented in open court to the conditions annexed by the court. *467 There is no merit to defendants’ contention in this behalf.

The law seems to be well settled that a plaintiff may institute an action on a redelivery bond without exhausting his right by execution and without a previous demand. The entry of the judgment in favor of plaintiff for the return of the property or payment of the value thereof as fixed in the judgment is sufficient demand °and notice to defendant and his surety.

“Where the statute requires that where defendant in replevin gives a redelivery bond and obtains the property the judgment rendered upon a verdict for plaintiff shall be for the value of the property and damages for its detention, plaintiff may have execution upon such judgment or apply for an order for restoration of the property or he may sue upon the bond, the remedy upon the bond being cumulative and the right to proceed against the sureties thereon not being waived or affected by the judgment rendered for the value of the property.” 34 Cyc. 1590 (II).

Sweeney v. Loome, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 208-215 (22 L. Ed. 727, 729, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes); Lewis v. McNary, 38 Or. 116, 119 (62 Pac. 897).

Was the plaintiff bound to accept the return of the automobile at the time it was tendered to him by defendants? Where the property taken under a redelivery bond remains in substantially the same condition- the return thereof to the plaintiff is a satisfaction of-the judgment pro tanto: Marks v. Willis, 36 Or. 1 (58 Pac. 526, 78 Am. St. Rep. 752); Lewis v. McNary, above. In order for the return of the property to have that effect the property must be in substantially the same condition in which it *468 was received by tbe defendants: 23 R. C. L. 907, § 68; 34 Cyc. 1575 (B); Tucker v. Tremont Trust Co., 242 Mass. 25 (136 N. E. 62, 24 A. L. R. 1185); Jacobs v. Walker, 90 Okl. 209 (216 Pac. 935, 31 A. L. R. 1287); Hallidie Machinery Co. v. Whidbey Island S. & G. Co., 73 Wash. 403 (131 Pac. 1156, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 40, 46); Fair v. Citizens’ State Bank, 69 Kan. 353 (76 Pac. 847, 848, 105 Am. St. Rep. 168, 2 Ann. Cas. 960). Whether or not the automobile0was in substantially the same condition at the time it was tendered to plaintiff as it was when it was taken from the sheriff by the defendants is a question of fact. The ca'se was tried to the court without a jury. The court found that the automobile tendered by the defendants to plaintiff was worthless, except for junk, and was not the property received by defendants from the sheriff. There was material evidence supporting that finding. Said finding is conclusive on this court.

Defendants also urge in their brief that the court did not make findings on all the issues submitted by the pleadings. We have carefully compared the findings with the pleadings and find no merit in this contention. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.