The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-02-12
SATURDAY EVENING LETTER
(5y Justice J. E. Robinson.)

ment. the sale was contrary to, law
| and 1t was void.
Now, as you know, every tax sale
| of land is made subject to the right
of the owner to redeem from the sale
within three years by paying to the
county treasurer the amount for which
it was SOLD, with interest and penal
ty, and the county auditor cannot
make valid tax deed without first
publishing q redemption notice. which
must state the sum for which each
tract of land was sold, and the amount
necessary to redeem. But in this case
there was no such notice. There was
notice, but it is void on it's face,
because it fails to show the sum for
which any lot was sold. 1t shows only
that the three were sold for lump
sum.
Now, as you must see,t the record shows
that the tax deed was void because of
| three fatal and obvious defects. To
make title under a tax deed there
must be a compliance with all the re-
quiremepts of the statute in regard
to the assessment, the levy Of the
tax, the sale, the notice of sale, the
redemption notice and the making
of the tax deed.
The Devils Lake Case.
Robinson, j.: This is an action for
the specific performance of a listing
land contract. The plaintiff is an
irresponsible non resident corporation
and it never put up a dollar on the
contract. That alone is quite enough
to show that the plaintiff has no
standing in court of equity.
The land contract is in the form of
sharp listing agreement such as
party may be induced to sign when
he is tricked or hypnotized or when
he has taken leave of his senses. The
defendant agrees to list for sale with
an irresponsible Nonresident corpor-
alton, $50 acres of land in Benson
county. at the net price of $50 per
acre. including a complete farming
outfit, and to give the plaintiff the
exclusive right of sale or purchase
for seven months. Terms of sale
$4,000 cash and balance in five years,
with interest. The contract was dated
5, 1915, and by It's terms 1t purports
to give plaintiff the exclusive right of
sale or purchase for seven months.
The answer AYERS that it was a part
of the listing contract that the sale,
If any, must be consummated before
, July l, 1915. and it was so under
stood by both parties->-and such APP
pears to be the fact-and that on July
/, 1915. the plaintiff requested an ex-
tension of three days. That several
extensions were granted until time Of
harvesting.
1t appears that after the defendant
had harvested crop to the value of
about $4,000 the plaintiff makes a
tender of $4,000 and asks for the
crop, the land and the farming OUT
fit, consisting of large amount Of
personal property. OF course Judge
G. w. Butte very justly found against
the plaintiff. The case will not bear
any discussion. Obviously, it has no
equity and no merits. Indeed a party
who asks a court OF equity to enforce
such deal well deserves to be sent
to Jail for contempt. The judgment
of the district court Is affirmed, with
costs of both courts
If such decisions were generally
published and read, farmers would
learn better than to sign such snide
contracts, and sharpers would learn
better than to expect the courts to
aid their nefarious schemes.
j. e. Robinson.