"In an action of replevin, where the evidence discloses that plaintiff had never parted with the title to the property, but only with possession thereof, to another, it was error to refuse to instruct the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff, although the evidence disclosed defendant to be an innocent purchaser for value from such possessor." See, also, the case of Alexander v. Busch, 66 Okla. 17, 166 P. 900. Defendants also requested several other instructions. They raised the identical question above disposed of and we deem a further discussion unnecessary.

For it is written in the Uniform Sales Act, and it is a fundamental principle of the law that where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority of or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct 8 precluded from denying the authority of the seller to sell. Section 5132, Comp. Laws 1917; Alexander v. Busch, 166 P. 900, L.R.A. 1918E, 125. I turn, therefore, to a brief discussion of that subject in the light of the facts in the case and the findings of the court which are supported by evidence. In Lewenberg v. Hayes, 91 Me. 104, 39 A. 469, 64 Am. St. Rep. 215, the plaintiff sold to one D., a tradesman, certain merchandise, half cash and half in thirty days, and delivered the goods without exacting the cash. It was held that the plaintiff was estopped as against an innocent purchaser from D. from claiming that the sale was conditional and that the title had not passed, because of the implied authority he had given D. to sell the goods.

70 C.J.S. Perjury pp. 461-463; Code of Ala. 1940, Title 14, Sec. 375; Williams v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605; Wright v. State, 30 Ala. App. 196, 3 So.2d 321; Knight v. State, 241 Ala. 152, 1 So.2d 669. Proof of contradictory statements cannot form a corpus delicti, no matter how many witnesses testify to these facts, it cannot be the equivalent of corroborative proof of the corpus delicti. Williams v. State, 34 Ala. App. 462, 41 So.2d 605; 48 C.J. Section 166 P. 900-905; 41 Am.Jur. Perjury Section 69; Wafford v. State, 21 Ala. App. 521, 109 So. 886. A confession must be corroborated by independent evidence of a corpus delicti.

The mere fact that property is in the possession of, and used by, another will not estop the owner from asserting ownership thereof as against one holding under a mortgage from the person in possession. [Alexander v. Busch, 66 Okla. 17, 166 P. 900, L.R.A. 1918E. 125.] "Certainly it is not imposing too great a burden to require a mortgagee to trace by inspection of a bill of sale title to the car mortgaged."