¶1 after stating tbe ease: In our opinion, there was evidence fit to be submitted to tbe jury. It is not conclusive in its nature, and may be weakened or strengthened, when all tbe facts are developed.
¶2 Tbe admission that she is tbe owner of tbe land on which tbe mill is located is some evidence that she is tbe owner of tbe mill. If affixed to tbe soil it would be a part of tbe land, nothing else appearing, and if not, and it was personalty, tbe fact that it is on her land is evidence of possession, and evidence of tbe possession of personalty is evidence of title, in tbe absence of other proof. There is also evidence that tbe defendant was exercising dominion over tbe property, as she says she bad given direction for tbe plaintiff to stay off tbe premises.
¶3 Tbe circumstance that tbe mill “is situated” on tbe land, and “has not been in operation during tbe past twelve months,” is entitled to some weight, as ordinarily valuable property, not in use, is not left so long on tbe land of another.
¶4 If there is evidence that tbe defendant is tbe owner of tbe mill on her land, and sawing her timber, this could be considered by tbe jury on tbe question of tbe operation of tbe mill.
¶5 “Where tbe plaintiff has suffered an injury from tbe negligent management of a vehicle, such as a boat, car or carriage, it is sufficient prima- facie evidence that tbe negligence was imputable to tbe defendant to show that be was tbe owner of tbe thing, without proving affirmatively that tbe person in charge was tbe defendant’s servant. It lies with tbe defendant to show that tbe person in charge was not bis servant, leaving him to show, if be can, that tbe property was not under bis control at tbe time, and that tbe accident was occasioned by tbe fault of a stranger, an independent contractor or other person, for whose negligence tbe owner would not be answerable. 1 Sherm. and Redf. Neg., 71. Any other rule, especially where persons are dealing with corporations, which can act only through agents and servants, would render it almost impossible for a plaintiff to recover for injuries sustained by defective machinery or negligent use of machinery.” Midgette v. Manufacturing Co., 150 N. C., 341.
¶6*6 The abstract of taxes was not admissible in evidence. It was offered to show that Tate was the agent of the defendant, but it amounted to no more than a declaration, and an agency cannot be proved in this way.
¶7 “That an agency must be proved aliunde the declarations of the alleged agent is elementary law, and this is true both as to the establishment of the agency and the nature and extent of the authority.” West v. Grocery Co., 138 N. C., 168. It may, however, be established by the testimony of the agent under oath. Machine Co. v. Seago, 128 N. C., 160.
¶8 The judgment of nonsuit is set aside and a new trial ordered.
¶9 New trial.