Irrespective of other points made by the appellant, and which need not now be considered, we are of opinion that the Court below erred in instructing the jury that the agreement of August 4th, 1870, was sufficient in point of law to divest the interest of De la Mere and vest the same in the plaintiff, so as to enable the plaintiff to recover that interest in this action.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed and cause remanded. Remittitur forthwith.