The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-19
HENDERSON LAW CO, EFT AL vs.
 HINSON.

HINSON.
 rrespass and Trover. (Deciied Nov.
 24, Is0S.--47 South 717.)
 i. Appeal and error; complaint: sufficIency: questions not necessary to be decided.--Where one count of the complaint was good. under which all the testimony competent under an- other count would be admissible, the sufficiency of such other count. when attacked by demurrer will not be de- termined on appeal j g. Principal and agent; other trans actions of agent; ;Sbxidence.--Where the issue was between . senior and junior mortEagee as to the conversion of property (by the junior mortgagees covered by both mortgages, where the property was taken by a third per, son to whom the junior mortgagee hao transferred his mortgage, It was com petent to show that such third person had collected other chattel mortgages for the junior tmortgagee on the issue as to whether such third person was the agent of the junior mortgagee.
 8. 6ame.--Letters written by plain tiffs attorney to defendant setting forth plaintiffs claim to the chattel. and the facts on which the claim was based, demanding a return of the cna.- tells. and damages, and letters wfit- fen by defendant in reply thereto, stat ing that if plaintiffs attorney would meet defendant the defendant could satisfy such attorney. that defendant could maintain all the ground covered In the matter. were admissible to show the agency of the third person who took the property under the Juhior mortgage, transferred to him by the defendant. that he was acting. within the line of his agency, and that de- fendant had ratified his conduct in taking the chattsls; the issue being whether. such third person was the agent of defendant in the taking or the chattel.
 Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. H. A. Peace.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson.
 Tyson, c. J., Simpson and Denson. JJ.. concur.
 DICKSON, EFT AL vs VAN HoosE.
 EFT AL AND vANHOOSH. EFT AL
 vS. DICKSON, EFT AL. Ejectment. (Decided Nov, 26. is0s.--
 47 South 71s,)
 1. Deeds: construction.-Where the real intention of the parties can be gathered from the instrument itself arbitrary rules will not be applied In construing deed,
 2. Same.-Deeds of bargain and sale IO0nQG0 on NdluaOlC COhSA0CA MAAA be construed most strongly against the grantor and in favor of the grantee.
 5. Same; conflicting provisions.-I The words of the granting clause will prevail where there Is a conflict be- tween the predatory words, the grant ing clause and habendum clause of the deed.
 4. Same; estate conveyeR-A deed conveyed whatever interest%he grantor had in the property where--the prefa- tory words recited that. the grantor possessed a life estate therein. the habendum clause recited that the grantee was to have and to hold all and singular the life estate and interest In the grantor, but the granting clause was absolute in its terms and granted aIl the right, title. interests. estate. claim and demand of the Trantor In and to the property.
 Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court
 Heard before Hon. Henry B. Foster.
 Reversed and rendered on the cross appeal. Opinion by Denson, ,.
 Tyson, C.. J.. Simpson and Anderson, II concur.