In substance, the only issue in a replevin action, such as the instant case, is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the replevin property at the time of the commencement of the action, and the rights of the parties are determined as of that time. ( Secrest v. Wood, 98 Okla. 60, 224 P. 349; Bartlett v. Bank, supra, p. 131.) G.S. 1949, 58-307, provides that in the absence of stipulations to the contrary, the mortgagee of personal property shall have the legal title thereto, and the right of possession.

The contention is without merit, and it follows that the proceeds of the property levied upon are not required to be applied to the payment of the five different classes of preferred claims arising under section 1255, O. S. 1931, in the probate proceedings rather than to satisfaction of the judgment under execution as contemplated by the rules of law hereinbefore set forth. On the other hand, lien rights of judgment creditors and mortgagees are similarly situated under the 6th classification of section 1255, O. S. 1931, as to order of payment from assets of an estate in prboate, but such classification does not prevent prior recourse to specific property bound as security for the lien debt. Dawkins v. People's Bank Trust Co., 117 Okla. 181, 245 P. 594; Wichita Mill Elevator Co. v. Farmers' State Bank, 102 Okla. 83, 226 P. 870; Secrest v. Wood, 98 Okla. 60, 224 P. 349; Costal Sales Corp. v. Hood, 147 Okla. 66, 295 P. 391; Western Newspaper Union v. Thurmond, 27 Okla. 261, 111 P. 204: Golden Gate, etc., Co. v. Taylor (Cal.) 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1152; In re Stevenson's Estate (Mont.) 289 P. 566.

Crumrine v. Reynolds, 13 Wyo. 111; Cook v. Elmore, 25 Wyo. 398; Wood v. Wood, 25 Wyo. 26. This statute was construed in Jahns v. Nolting, 29 Cal. 508, and that case was followed in Oklahoma. Aultman Co. v. Fuss, 207 P. 308; Litz v. Bank, (Okla.) 83 P. 790; Secrest v. Wood, 224 P. 349; 38 Cyc. 2024; Hodgson v. Hatfield, (Okla.) 240 P. 69; Bank v. Keller, (Okla.) 256 P. 34. The right of recovery is fixed by statute. The words used in Sec. 6832 are mandatory. Brennan v. Co., 29 Wyo. 116; Delfelder v. Bank, (Wyo.) 269 P. 418; Auto Co. v. Co., 285 P. 1035.

There is no contention that the defendant embezzled this property. The defendant took possession of the property under the terms of its mortgage, and this it had a right to do, regardless of whether an administrator had been appointed or not. Secrest v. Wood, 98 Okla. 60, 224 P. 349. In order to render judgment against the defendant for double the value of this property, as in this case, the court had to find that the defendant alienated said property within the provisions of section 1220, supra.