The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-26
cRrRs vs. roWLER.

CREBS vs. FOWLEh. RilI to Quiet Title. (Decided Noyem-
 her 24th, 19o6s--42 So. Rep. sos.l
 1. Taxation; sale by state; asssn- the state lands sold to 1t for taxes, un- der Section 41o2 of the Code of 1886 does not become the assignee of ths States lien unless he compiled with the conditions of Sections 41oo-01.
 {. Same: notice of sale.--One who purchasss from the Auditor lands sold fo the state for taxes. without giving the owner the sixty days notice re- Quired by Section 4. Acts 1sss-s. D. te2. within which the owner may redeem, acquires no title to the land.
 & Same.--where notice is given by the Auditor to the owner of lands sold 10 the State for taxes that application mas been made to purchase. and allow ing sixty days within which to redeem 1t, q sale made before the expiration of sixty days is void, notwithstanding the provision in Acts 1903, p. is5, that the Auditor may fix reasonable time in which the lands may be redeemed: he having fixed the sixty days as a rea- Eonable time.
 .Rehearing Denied December sth. 1906.
 Appeal from Mobile Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. Thomas H. Smith.
 Afirmed. Opinion by Anderson, J.
 Weakley, C. J. Tyson, and Simpson. JJ.. concur.
 BOROUGH v. HARRINGTON & SONS Assumpsft--( Decided November Is, 1906
 42 So. Rep 557.l
 1. Partnership; action by firm: denial of existence of firm: evidence: admissi- biiity--Where the existence of the part nership is denied. the articles of CO., partnership disclosing an agreement for the transaction of 6 lawful business in which each partner is to share in the profits and loss. arc admissible to show partnership.
 g. Evidence; paroI evidence; contra } dieting articles of partnership; ad- missibiiltv--It is admissible to show by parol evidence that the partners mutu- ally acquiesced in and actually em- ployed another name to designate the firm, subsequent to the executios of the articles of partnership which gave ths hrm another name.
 5. Partnership: action by firm: change in name of firm; evidence; ad- mfSzibiiity--Where defendant. by plea. averred that the name of the firm was not the name In which the suit was brought, checks drawn in the name adopted by the firm and in whose name the suit was brought, were admissible az corroborative of the fact that the partners, by mutual consent. had changed the firm name from what it was to the name in which the suit was brought.
 A Same-Where defendant denied the existence of the firm and alleged that the contract sued on was made with an individual of the firm. evil dence of conversation between the in- dividuaI and defendant bringing to the A. -aaAn axf the partnership and the partnership s ownership of the corn concerning which the negotiation was had. was admissi- ble as showing knowledge on the part of the defendant that he was dealing with the firm, although the defendant addressed his order for the shipment of tho corn to the partners individually. and the subsequent correspondence was conducted by one of the partners in his individual name.
 6. Evidence: best evidence--A ship meat of corn being a substantive fact existing independent of the bill of lad ing. it Is permissible to make proof of the stfpmenkhaf a carload of corn with out producing the bill of lading.
 S. 9ame--The receipt which the de- fendants drayman gave to the carrier on the delivery Of the corn to him. was admissible in evidence against the ob.
 
 and the bill of lading. which was moi produced or accounted for. was the best evidence.
 !. Trial: objections to evidence statement of ground suflciency- Where the evidence was not subject tC the objection interposed to its admiR' sion, although it may have been object. ionable on other grounds, the court will not be put in error for admitting it.
 8. Appeal: harmless error; erroneous admission of evidence-An error in al. lowing the witness to state the contents of a written instrument, not in evid encs. is cured by a subsequent intro auction of the instrument.
 Q. Partnership; action by firm; ques ton for Jury-The affirmative charR, for the defendant is properly deniet where the evidence showed that tn, corn shipped belonged to the firm ant that defendant knew he was dealins