It is a fatal objection to the plaintiff’s action that she does not appear to have been in possession of the premises, nor does it appear that the homestead had been set apart to her by the court. It seems that her tenant was in possession. If his possession was invaded it was for him, and not the plaintiff, to bi’ing the suit. The verdict was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.