Tbe only question presented by tbe appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit. There were no exceptions to tbe evidence or to tbe judge’s charge to tbe jury.

Tbe defendants contended that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff showed that bis course of dealing witb tbe mortgagor witb respect to tbe crops covered by bis mortgage was such as to indicate that be bad consented to tbe sale of tbe crops by tbe mortgagor, and that tbe execution of a new mortgage each year released tbe mortgage on tbe crops of tbe preceding year, and ratified tbe sales to defendants. But tbe plaintiff testified: “I never gave Mr. Smith permission to sell any part of mortgaged crops. Never agreed to release either mortgage. Had a definite understanding and agreement witb Mr. Smith that each additional mortgage would be additional security witb right to toll all crops previously disposed of unless 1935 note paid in full at maturity. Had no knowledge of either defendant purchasing crops, except Smith told me be bad sold them to C. B. Barnett.”

This evidence was sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury on tbe issues raised. Liability for tbe recovery was apportioned among tbe defendants in accord witb an agreement between them.

In tbe trial, we find

No error.