
    Elizabeth A. Manes, plaintiff in error, vs. James W. Slater et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    New Trial — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — Plaintiffs m ejectment introduced in evidence a deed for the premises in dispute, from Samuel Slater to Ann Slater during her life, with remainder to her children by William Slater, and proved the death of *their mother, Ann Slater. The deed bears date January 1st, 1849. Defendant introduced a deed dated December 4th, 1849, to the same premises, from Ann Slater and William Slater, her husband, to Elmore Manes, and one from the representatives of Manes to Waters, with a transfer of the last deed to defendant. It was not in evidence that Samuel Slater was ever in possession of the premises, nor had any title in him, nor that Ann Slater ever accepted the deed from him, or that she and her husband held under him, or recognized the title as ever being in him, nor that the deed was ever in the possession of Ann Slater, or of any one under whom defendant claims:
    Held, That the evidence does not show a common propositus under whom both plaintiffs and defendant claim, and that no title is shown in the plaintiffs to entitle them to recovery.
    Ejectment. Title. Before Judge ScheEy. Bulloch Superior Court. October Term, 1871.
    James W. Slater, Daniel G. Slater and Lavinia Slater brought complaint against Elizabeth A. Manes, for a tract of land containing three hundred and twentyTfive acres, more or less, situate in the county of Bulloch, known as the “Beaver Pond tract.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, the statute of limitations and title hy prescription.
    Upon the trial the plaintiffs introduced the following evidence:
    1st. Deed from Samuel Slater, executed on January 1st, 1849, conveying the premises in dispute to Ann Slater for and during her natural life, with remainder to the children she may have by her husband, William Slater.
    2d. James W. Slater, one of the plaintiffs, testified that plaintiffs are the children of William and Ann Slater, who have both-been dead for some ten years.
    Plaintiffs closed. The defendant introduced the following evidence:
    1st. Deed from William and Ann Slater, dated December 4th, 1849, conveying the premises in controversy to Elmore Manes.
    2d. Deed from the administrator and administratrix of Elmore Manes, dated October 5th, 1858, conveying the said land to Erastus Waters.
    *3d. Transfer of the deed last aforesaid by Waters to defendant, of same date with the deed.
    4th. B. J. Sims testified that Elmore Manes, the husband of defendant, went into possession of the property in dispute more than seventeen years ago, and defendant has been in possession from the date of the transfer of the deed by Erastus Waters to her, up to the present time.
    The jury found for the defendant. A motion was made for • a new trial because the verdict was' contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was sustained and a' new trial ordered.. Whereupon, the defendant excepted, and now assigns said ruling as error.
    Rurus E. Lester ; A. H. Smith, by brief, for plaintiff in error.
    James IT. Hunter; H. C. McCale, by brief, for defendants.
    
      
      New Trial — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — Principal case cited with approval in Slater v. Manes, 54 Ga. 671.
    
   Tripre, Judge.

We presume the Court granted the new trial on the principle that “wher.e both plaintiff and defendant in ejectment deduce title from a common source it is not necessary for either party to go beyond that/’ as was held in Wood et al., vs. McGuire’s children, 17 Georgia, 303. But here this was not exactly the case. Plaintiffs claim under a deed from Samuel Slater to Ann Slater for life, with remainder to them. Defendant claims under a deed from Ann Slater and her husband, William Slater. No title or possession was ever shown in Samuel Slater, nor was there any evidence that Ann Slater or her husband ever accepted the deed or possession from him, or that the deed from him was ever in her possession, or her husband’s, or in the possession of defendant or any one under whom he claims. In fact, the record does not disclose that there was any connection whatever between Samuel Slater and the defendant’s title, nor indeed that there was any privity or relationship between Samuel Slater and Ann Slater, except *what is recited in the deed of Samuel Slater, and that was introduced by plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs certainly did not make a case when they closed, on which they could recover; and though the defendant may not have shown a good title in himself, the only question in the' case is, whether he, by the, introduction of the deed from Ann and William Slater, sufficiently showed title in Samuel Slater to entitle the plaintiffs to a recovery. That deed produced the only-danger to defendant, so far as the record discloses. Keep it out, and the battle was won. We cannot tell what the facts are, outside of the record, but nothing stated in it would authorize a recovery by plaintiffs, even with that deed in evidence. Had the plaintiffs have gone one step farther and proved that Ann and William Slater did hold or claim under this deed of Samuel Slater, the result might have been different.

Judgment reversed.  