Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/623

 him incident to putting the land under cultivation, raising, gathering, and marketing the crop are not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. We are also very much in doubt as to what the facts are with | respect to the arrangement, if any, under which the 1915 crop was produced. The evidence also is not as clear as it probably can be made as to the sums expended by the defendant Hodge in making permanent improvements on the premises. These matters, of course, all relate to the amount still due to the defendant Hodge, and to be paid by the plaintiff in order to entitle him to have premises conveyed to him. Hence, so far as this feature of the case is concerned, we have reached the conclusion that the ends of justice will be best subserved by remanding the case for a retrial in accordance with the precedents set by former decisions of this court. See King v. Tallmadge et al., 178 N: W. 280.

It is therefore ordered that the case be remanded for a retrial upon the question as to what amount still remains due to the defendant Hodge from the plaintiff. The trial court, upon ascertaining such amount, will allow the plaintiff a reasonable time in which to make payment, and enter judgment that, upon such payment being made, the defendant Hodge convey to the plaintiff all his right, interest, and title to the premises. The appellant will recover the costs of this appeal. Costs of the action in the district court will abide the result of the final judgment.

, C. J., and, , and , JJ, concur.