The deed, which plaintiffs attack, bears date 31 December, 1911, and the first exception is to permitting a witness who had testified *145 to an injury to tbe grantor, resulting in a fractured bip, to fix tbe time of tbe fall as early in 1916.

We see nothing in this prejudicial to tbe defendants, and it was competent in view of tbe evidence of tbe plaintiffs tending to prove that tbe grantor was more than eighty years of age, of weak mind, and that her mental and physical condition gradually grew worse from tbe time of tbe fall until her death.

Tbe second assignment does not comply with tbe rule requiring tbe appellant to at least set forth in tbe assignment of error tbe evidence objected to, but upon examination of tbe record it appears that a witness for plaintiff was asked on cross-examination bis opinion of tbe sanity of tbe grantor, assuming certain facts to be" true, and plaintiff was permitted in reply to ask for bis opinion if tbe facts were otherwise, which was necessary to give tbe jury a proper estimate of tbe testimony of tbe witness.

Tbe evidence objected to and covered by tbe third assignment is as follows: “She sent for me six or eight months afterwards to come, and I went to see her, and she said T signed some papers before you they tell me and I do not recollect it, and I want to know what sort of papers they were.’ I told her it was a deed 'for twenty-six acres of land, and it was to Mrs. Geneva Sykes, but she did not seem to know or recollect about it and said she was bothered about it. I explained it to her and tried to refresh her memory, and then she remembered it and seemed satisfied. This was some time in August.”

This evidence was very favorable to tbe defendant, because, while she (tbe grantor) at first said she did not recollect signing tbe deed, when her memory was refreshed “she remembered it and seemed satisfied,” thus confirming tbe deed eight months after its execution, but if hurtful to tbe defendant it was competent to be considered on tbe question of tbe mental capacity of tbe grantor at tbe time of tbe execution of tbe deed, as it was in evidence that tbe grantor was old and gradually growing weaker in mind and body.

Tbe evidence of tbe value of tbe crops on tbe land in 1919 was brought out on tbe cross-examination of a witness for tbe defendant, who bad testified, “Some of tbe land was worth $15 or $20 an acre, but it was poor, sorry land, big gullies and washes so that you could bury a horse anywhere you wanted to,” and was properly admitted for the purpose of contradicting or testing this witness.

Tbe witness testified, when asked tbe value of tbe crops in 1919 : “I declare I do not know bow much crop was raised on it, but a good crop, about six acres of tobacco, worth about a thousand dollars. Tbe crops this year are about as good as they were last year.”

*146 If, as was thus shown, the crops raised on the land in 1918 and 1919 or 1919 and 1920 were good, the jury might well doubt the statement of the witness on his examination in chief that on 31 December, 1917, when the deed was executed, “it was poor, sorry land, big gullies and washes so that you could bury a horse anywhere you wanted to,” evidence offered by the defendant to show that the consideration named in the deed was adequate.

We find no error in the trial.

No error.