This is an action for money received by defendant’s intestate from the rent of lands belonging to plaintiffs and wrongfully appropriated to his own use. The defense relied on what seems to be the pleas of presumptions and abandonment.
In the course of the trial, J. W. Boone, a party to the action, was allowed to testify as to his own age, and the ages of 'the other plaintiffs, which knowledge he said he got from the family Bible. That this Bible was in the possession of his sister, and that he had no other knowledge as to the dates of their births. This question and answer were objected to by defendant; objection overruled, evidence admitted, and defendant excepted.
Owing to the relationship of Justice Clakk to one of the plaintiffs, he did not sit in this case, and the other members of the Court being equally divided upon the competency of this evidence, the opinion of the Court below must prevail, and the evidence held to be competent.
Puryear v. Lynch,
*826 We do not think the defendant can sustain heir defense upon the pleas of the statute of presumption and abandonment.
The Code went into effect in August, 1868, taking- the place of The Revised Code, and The Code now contains no statute of presumptions; and it appears that nó part of the rents claimed were received until after 1868, when The Code went -into operation. The rights of infants and
femes covert
axe saved under chap. 65, secs. 5 and 9, Revised Code', and also by sec. 149, of The Code. This action having been commenced the 20th of September, 1893, chap. 113, Acts of 1891, has no application, Tt seems that defendant’s intestate was a tenant in common with the plaintiffs, of the land from which the rents were collected, and no demand had been made to start a presumption of ouster, which requires twenty years.
Shannon v.
Lamb, at this term;
Jolly v.
Bryan,
The judgment of the Court appealed from is •
Affirmed.