On Motion for Rehearing.
We have reviewed the record, and have concluded that the appellees’ pleadings are. probably sufficient as to the item denied under oath, and that the evidence relating to that item was admissible; nevertheless the court erred in instructing a verdict for ap-pellees for the reasons set out in the original opinion. The evidence tending to show weakness of the machinery, that it was in good running condition, and probably would have ■done the work for which it was ordered, is certainly strong enough to have required the court to submit the issues to the jury.
The appellees Moore, Shultz, and Massie were sued as partners. There is no sworn ■denial of partnership, and, since it seems they were operating under a trust agreement, they are in fact liable as partners.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.