The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-12
sZ.'y 9 TAI CITY S|:|S
 N D ;al LAN

a seller agreed to file e bond to com- ply with its contract with a bank at the buyers place of business, and of- fered evidence to show that the bond was mailed to the bank on certain date, which the bank claimed never to have received, whether the bond was received by the bank was for the jury. 5. Same; evidence.--Where, in an action for breach of 8 contract of sale, l 1t was claimed that the seller did not file a bond as required by the contract within a reasonable time. and the evil dence showed that letters passed be- tween the buyer and seller which were sent through the mall by which bond not received was claimed to have been sent by the seller, evidence that 1t took three or four days for letter to pass between the buyer and seller was ad- mlsslble.
 6. Dispositions; motion to quash; grounds.-A deposition was not subject to motion to quash because no copy of certain papers referred to in one of the interrogatories had been served on the opposite party before the issuance of commission and the taking of the deposition.
 2. Contracts; performance of condi- tions; question of law.--Where, in an action for breach of 8 contract of sale, the seller had not filed a bond required by the contract within reasonable tine, an instruction that. if the bond was filed within such time as to afford the buyer all the protection he was en- titled to under the contract, plaintiff was entitled to recover, was properly refused as submitting question of law to the jury.
 8. Appeal; instructions; prejudice.- Where the contract of sRle was al- legged to have been broken by the seller by its failure to file a bond within a reasonable time as required, instruc- tions that 1t was the sellers duty to see that the bond was filed within a reasonable time, and that the buyers failure to advise the seller that the bond had not been filed would not fur nlsh the seller an excuse for not filing 1t within a reasonable time. were not prejudiclal to the seller.
 Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson, J.
 Weakley, c. J., Simpson and Ander- son, U. concur.
 EAGLE IRON CO. wsBAUGH. Action for Breach of Contract. (De-
 cided June 14. 1s0s.-41.A So. Rep.
 663.)
 1. Principal and Agent; Existence of Relation.--Evidence of the statements or admissions of an agent are not ad- missible against the principal for the purpose of establishing the authority of the agent. nor can such authority be established by~showing that he act- cd as agent or claimed to have the powers he assumed, when his authori- ty is questioned; such statements and admissions became competant only after some other evidence has been in- troduced tending to show such au- thority, or when such other evidence has been subsequently, introduced.
 2. Sales; Breach of Contract; Dam ages; Bvidence.-In an action for dam ages for breach of a contract to pur- chase a certain quantity of wood. evidence of what the seller received for the wood which the buyer fin the contract refused to receive was )ad- missable to enable the jury and court to arrive at the damages.
 B. Parties: Striking Out.--Where the party 10 the contract and its agent in the purchase of the wood were Jointly sued for a breach of the contract nd tho evidence failed a to disciose aug individual liability on the part .f the agent 1t was proper to permit an amendment striking out the agents name as party defendant. s,.e.-t.
 (. PleadingS Pleas in AbatH E e Time for Flling.-A suit was against a corporation and an ual in the county in which atfW diYldual lived, and in which L.