Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/692

 and, JJ., dissent.

, C. J. (specially concurring). The question of substantial performance of the contract was one of fact for the jury and under proper instructions was submitted to it. All of the facts were submitted to the jury. It returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, which should have been permitted to stand. The trial court, however, upon motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, entered judgment for the defendant. This was error. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and judgment entered on the verdict.

KAROLINE NASSET, Respondent, v. CHAS. H. HOUSKA and A. L. MARTIN, Appellants.

Vendor and purchaser—vendor held entitled to interest from sale date until payment; litigation involving amount of nonresident aliens inheritance tax does not affect marketability of citizen’s title; where no sale terms are specified, cash is presumed.

1. Plaintiff brought an action to quiet title to certain land, and judgment was entered in her favor. Defendant’s appeal is from the judgment.

It is held for reasons stated in the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Rolette County, A. G. Burr, J.

Judgment affirmed.

Cuthbert, Smythe & Wheeler and E. T. Burke, for appellants.

That Houska was the agent of the plaintiff and that she is bound by