This is  an appeal in an action  brought to recover the possession, or, in default thereof, the value of certain jewels pawned  to  the defendants, who constitute  the association known as "The U. S. Loan Co.," a pawnbroking establishment.  It  is claimed  by the plaintiff  that the jewels in question belonged to her and  that  they were  pawned by her  husband to the defendants without her knowledge and consent  and during her absence  from  the country;  that the  defendants,  at the  time that the jewels were pawned, knew that they belonged to the plaintiff and that her  husband had no right or authority from her to pawn them.

The learned  trial court  found in favor of plaintiff and entered  judgment against  the defendants  for  the  return of the jewels, or, in default of their return, that they pay to the plaintiff the sum of P2,800, the value thereof.  From this  judgment the defendants appealed, raising here both questions of law and of fact.

We have given very careful  consideration to the facts presented by the record on this appeal.  While the evidence is somewhat conflicting, we are,  nevertheless, clearly of the  opinion that the following  findings of fact made by the  learned trial court are supported by a great preponderance of the  evidence:

First.  That the jewels in question belonged to the plaintiff and  that that fact was known to the defendants at the time they received the same  from her husband. Second. That the  pledge  in pawn of said jewels by the husband of the  plaintiff was without her knowledge  and consent,  and that by no conduct of hers was that act subsequently ratified.

The defendants, in this court, for the purpose of avoiding liability, assert  that the plaintiff  and her  husband constituted a company known as C. W. Mead & Co., a contracting firm, and that the jewels in question were pawned to the defendants by  the plaintiff's husband for  the  purpose of raising funds to conduct the business of  that company; that said funds went into and formed a part of the assets of that company and  that the  plaintiff thereby received the benefits of such pawn; that this being so,  she ought not now to be heard to impugn the pawn or to escape the results of the act of the managing member of the company.

In reply to this, it is  sufficient to say that  the jewels were pawned personally by the plaintiff's husband; that the plaintiff knew nothing of such pawn and never consented thereto; that she knew nothing  of the purpose to which  such funds were  destined and knew nothing whatever of that transaction or of  any detail thereof until she had returned to this country from abroad several months after it had been consummated; that she never ratified that act,  but always disavowed any  part  in it; that such assertion  of the  defendants is in opposition  to the allegation of their answer, in which  they  say that  the  proceeds  of the  pawn were dedicated to the ordinary uses of the family as such.  But, under any view, no person may be deprived  of his property without his knowledge  or consent upon the assertion that the proceeds  of such property or  a portion thereof have gone  to the. beneficial use of a company of which he may have  been a member.

Upon the whole, we are fully convinced that the case was correctly decided by the learned trial court.  After a careful  consideration of  the  arguments  presented in  the very  able briefs of counsel and a thorough study of  the record,  we are clearly  of the opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs  against  the appellants.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Carson, and Trent,  JJ., concur.