Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/791

 by Mowry was duly canceled, and the defendant Ritz had no title in the land; that the Gold-Stabeck mortgage did not attach to the land so far as plaintiff’s interests are concerned; that, in any event, the trial court erred in not allowing priority to the plaintiff for certain payments made for taxes and upon the Klein mortgage. The defendant contends that the deed from the father to the plaintiff was a forgery (the trial court, in its memorandum opinion, strongly ,so intimates); that the trial court erred in not granting priority to the Gold-Stabeck Company mortgage.

Upon a consideration of the entire record we are of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the trial court should be sustained. Although the record is neither clear nor definite concerning application that should be made for payments made by Mowry in taxes or liens upon the land, we are unable to find that the computations of the trial court are erroneous. The contention of the plaintiff, namely, that the trial court erroneously received testimony of the defendant Ritz concerning transactions had with the deceased Mowry, cannot be sustained. The statute, precluding testimony concerning transactions had with deceased persons, is specific in its character, and relates only to actions wherein the person representative, heirs, or next of kin are parties. § 7871, C. L. 1913. The plaintiff did not appear in that capacity he claims title through a deed made by his father during lifetime. ‘The statute cannot be extended by judiical construction beyond its plain application. Lake Grocery Co. v. Chiostri, 34 N. D. 386, oo, 158 N. W. 998; Clarke v. Ross (Iowa) 60 N. W. 627, 629. See St. John v. Lofland, 5 N. D. 140, 64 N. W. 930; Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 1, § 578; Druey v. Baldwin, 41 N. D. 473, 479, 172 N. W. 663, 182 N. W. 699; Williams v. Clark, 42 N. D. 107, 114, 172 N. W. &25, 827. Accordingly, the judgment should be in all things affirmed.

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

, J. (dissenting). The plaintiff brings this action to quiet title to a half section of land in Rolette county. He avers that he is the owner in fee simple, and that defendants claim an estate adverse to him. Defendant Ritz answers that in May, 1915, the Twin City Investment Company was the owner of the land, and contracted to sell the