—-The Judge was requested to instruct the jury that if from the whole evidence, they believed they, (defendants,) were all owners, the admission of each is evidence against the whole.
Upon this request the Judge did Instruct the jury that if the joint ownership and liability of all the defendants were first proved, then the acknowledgment of each concerning the joint indebtedness, would be competent evidence against the whole.
In the case at bar there is not only no evidence of partnership, but the evidence shows that the defendants were not all owners at the time the original plaintiffs parted with the property sued for. The instructions were erroneous, and the verdict without evidence to support it.
Exceptions sustained, verdict set aside, and new trial granted.