
    Veal et al. vs. Robinson.
    Where two verdicts have been rendered in favor of the same party-on substantially the same issues of fact, and two new trials have been granted by the presiding j udge, the rule of discretion applicable to the first grant of a new trial does not apply; and if there was nothing objectionable in the rulings of the presiding judge on the last trial, and the evidence, although conflicting, supported the second verdict, it should not be set aside. 70 Qa., 809.
    
      (a.) Bepresentations made by a party in possession of land as to the title thereto, on the faith of which the person to whom they were made purchased from a third party, and subsequent conduct in pursuance of such representations, would estop the party making such representations and doing such acts from attacking the title acquired by the purchaser. Code, §2966.
    Judgment reversed.
    April 6, 1886.
   Hall, Justice.

[The facts of this case will be found fully reported in 70 Ga., 809. There the grant of a new trial by the court below was affirmed. On a second trial, the jury again found for the plaintiffs. The presiding judge again granted a new trial, and the plaintiffs excepted.]  