Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/281

 right to possession of the property at the time of commencement of the action. Kimmett v. Deitrich, 22 S. D. 590; Eldridge v. Sherman, (Mich.) 38 N. W. 255; Aber v. Bratton, (Mich.) 27 N. W. 564; Peterson v. Lodwick, (Neb.) 62 N. W. 1100; Caste v. Murray, (Oregon) 81 Pac. 883; Carr v. King et al., (Iowa) 169 N. W. 133.

“A defect in title to land conveyed by warranty deed will not defeat the vendor's right to recover the purchase price, while the presumption that he is able to respond in damages remains unchallenged. Zerfing v. Seeling, 12 S. D. 25; 80 N. W. 140.

“That a vendor did not have a merchantable title did not excuse the purchaser from making the payments required by the contract of sale.” Barrows v. Harter (Cal.) 130 Pac. 1050; Bowne v. Wolcott, tN. D. 415; Dahl v. Stakke, 12 N. D. 325; Bank v. Hayes, 34 N. D. 325; Notes 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1186.

“The mere fact that a superior outstanding title to land existed, which had never been hostilely contested, would not authorize the recovery of the consideration for such land.” Wilson v. Irish, 62 Iowa 260; 17 N. W. S11.

It is not necessary that a vendor be able to perform at the time of making the contract. Clapp v. Tower et al. 11 N. D. 556; Martinson v. Regan, 18 N. D. 467; Golden Valley Land & C. Co. v. Johnstone, 25 N. D. 148.

The question of title to land cannot be tried in a replevin action. Want of title to land cannot be set up as a defense. Barnhart v. Ford (Kan.) 15 Pac. 542; Anderson v. Hopler, (Ill.) 85 Am. Dec. 318; Pines v. Good 128 Cal. 38, 79 Am. St. Rep. 22; 60 Pac. 527; Snyder v. Vaux, 21 Am. Dec. 466; Note to King v. Mason 89 Am. Dec. 429-430.

“Where defendant received possession of land from plaintiff under a contract to purchase, which defendant forfeited, he is estopped from disputing plaintiff’s right and title to the land.” Coleman v. Stalnack, 15 S. D. 242; 88 N. W. 107.

T. F. Murtha, for respondent.

Under the circumstances in this case Mackey could question plain- tiffs’ title. Newcomb v. Ogden Plow Co. (Ia.) 95 N. W. 174; Schiff v. Tamor, 93 N.Y. Sup. 853; Potter v. Ranlett, (Mich.) 74 N.W. 661; Harding v. Olson, (Ill.) 52 N.E. 482; Smith v. Glenn, (Wash.) 82 Pac. 605 (especially § 6 of the syl.) ; Siglin v. Frost, (Mass.) 53 N. E. 820; Kares v.