There was no error in the rulings of the trial court on defendants’ objections to evidence offered by the plaintiff, or in the instructions of the court to the jury.

The evidence was properly admitted as tending to support the contention of plaintiff that the deed was not delivered by ber to the grantee named therein. The evidence was not incompetent under C. S., 1795.

Tbe instructions to which defendants excepted are in accordance with well settled principles of law. In tbe absence of a delivery, actual or constructive, a deed, although signed by tbe grantor named therein, is not valid as a conveyance of tbe land described therein. Tbe presumption of a delivery arising from tbe registration of tbe deed may be rebutted by evidence showing tbat tbe registration was inadvertent or fraudulent. Tbe judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.