The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-29

nishes the land and teams and the other party the labor, with an agree ment to divide the crops between them, a contract of hire exists under Sec. 2712, Cole 1896. and the title of the crops are in the owner of the soil. while the laborer has his lien for his share of the crops.
 2. Trover and conversion; right Of action: title of plaintiff; assignment of lfen--The assignee Of the lien of the party furnishing the labor acquires no title that will support trGer or con- version for part of the crop.
 3. Same; evidence; admissibilityr- Testimony tending to show that the owner of the crop said he would see the debt of the laborer paid, was ad- missible as circumstance tending to corroborate the assignee of the labor CTS lien that the owner did afterwards deliver and turn over the laborer's cotton to him in payment of the Ia borer's debt.
 plaintiff-Where the owner of the
 crop and the laborer divided the crop in accordance with the terms of the
 contract, and the part assigned to the
 1aborer was delivered to the assignee of the laborer's lien in payment or the mortgage to them, such assignees
 were entitled to maintain trover for | taking the crop by third person. B. Same; evidence; admissibility-- | Testimony that the owner of the crop | told the assignees of the laborer's lien | to go and get the cotton for the pay | ment of their claim against the labor 1 CT, was admissible as tending to snow l that the owner had relinquished his l right to the cotton and turned 1t over | to such assignees or to the laborer. 6. Same--It was competent to show 1 py plaintiff that after the cotton had | been taken from the .plaintin ana l placed in defendants warehouse, that l the owner of the crop said to plain | tiff that plaintiffs bales of cotton were l in the warehouse, as circumstance | tending to show that he considered l that the cotton had been delivered to l plaintiff under the mortgage.
 l '. Appeal; proceeding in lower court; scope of issues on new trial; theory | of action--The fact that case was | tried upon a different theory on for
 ner hearing, did not deprive plaintiff | of the right to prove anything mate | rial to the controversy on the present l trial. where the property sought to be | recovered was in possession of the de- l fendant at the time of the institution l of the suit. and was afterwards sold | by his employe .,.,
 s Troyer and Lonversion; title of y
 under a crop contract byssone furnish | ing the lands and teams and the other the labor, and such cotton was deliv- I cred by both parties to the contract to l plaintiff for credit upon the account 1 of the laborer. tn e plaintiff is f entitled to maintain trover for the conversion of such cotton; and deliv'
 cry is shown when the evidence dis- | cioses that the owner and the laboreI | each directed one of the plaintiffs to
 get the cotton and apply 1t to the la
 borer's account.
 | 9. Same; instructions--A charge i'
 correct which asserts that, in determin. ing whether the cotton was delivered to plaintiffs, the jury must look to al
 the evidence, and if they are reason.
 ably convinced.,that the owner directed
 one of the plaintiffs to get the cotton
 then the title to same passed 70 pam
 tiffs. - l 10. Same--A charge asserting tha
 when the cotton was gfnned, 1t belong