Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/315

, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. , Defendant, and , Defendants and Appellants.

1. Seed Lien—Description of Land.

Under the statute authorizing a seed lien, (Comp. Laws, § 5490,) the “account in writing” must embrace a description of the land on which the seed has been or is to be planted. Where such description of the land was omitted, held, fatal to the lien.

2. Same; Pleading in Action to Foreclose.

In an action to foreclose such lien, where the complaint shows affirmatively that the land is not described in the account in writing which was filed, held, that such complaint does not state a cause of action so far as the lien is concerned, and that an order of the district court overruling a demurrer thereto will be reversed.

3. Same; Court Will Not Amend Claim of Lien.

Held, further, that a court of equity will not reform such “account in writing” to make it conform to an oral understanding between the parties to the seed-lien transaction by inserting a proper description of the land therein. The lien arises on the statute, and does not depend for its existence upon a contract. Such lien can only be acquired by a substantial compliance with the statute which authorizes the lien.

4. Same; Same; Not Even if Error Was Caused by Fraud of Lienee.

Held, further, that the fact that a description of a different tract of land from that upon which the seed was sown was inserted through either the design or inadvertance of the party to whom the seed was furnished will make no difference with the rule above laid down.

APPEAL from district court, Traill county; Hon., Judge.

F. W. Ames, for appellants, cited: Mushlett v. Silverman, 50 N. Y. 360; Malter v. Falcon M. Co., 2 Pac. Rep. 50; Beals v. Cong. B'nai Jeshuran, 1 E. D. Smith, 657; Bugg v. Hoover, 10 N. W. 473; Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 218; McElivee v. Sandford, 53 How. Pr. 90; Valentine v. Ransom, 10 N. W. 338; Penrose v. Calkins, 19 Pac. 641; Lindley v. Cross,