(concurring specially). I concur in the foregoing ■opinion, except the discussion with reference to the admissibility of parol evidence on the question of possession. I express no opinion upon this matter, as it would seem that the verdict is correct even though the parol evidence referred to were not admissible, for, by legal implication, the purchaser was entitled to possession. Hence, in any event, the testimony bearing upon this question was not prejudicial to the defendant.