As a circumstance in the case, it may also be noticed that plaintiff received his sheriff's deed on January 16, 1903; that there is not any evidence that he ever took any steps to take possession of the land; he permitted the defendants to remain in possession, cropping the same and paying the taxes, and from the time he received the deed, up until the action to quiet title was commenced against him by Herman, he certainly could not claim that he had been deceived by anyone. He must have known that they were raising crops on the land, and making payments to Hankinson on the purchase price of it.

John and Albertina Krause, at that time, had only a contract from Hankinson for the purchase of the land. That contract would, no doubt, have been subject to cancelation, if payments had not been made, and crops had not been raised with which to make the payments, as it was a crop contract. Yet, there is no demand for possession by the plaintiff, nor did he assert any act of ownership over it. He did not pay any taxes during that time, nor did he ever do so. Plaintiff's conduct, in this regard, certainly shows that he did not believe his interest in the land, if any he had, of any great value.

In the case of Krause v. Krause, 30 N. D. 64, 151 N. W. 991, one of the principal issues, as we view it, was whether there was any fraud in the assignment of the contract. This court, in stating the facts in that case, uses the following language: "Defendant, as a second defense, insists that the assignment to Herman was also made in fraud of creditors, and especially the creditor Latzke; among other things, calls attention to the fact that, on January 5, 1902, plaintiff's husband filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, was adjudged a bankrupt and discharged as such, December 3, 1903. The judgment of Latzke was scheduled in that proceeding. Defendant claims that the assignment of the Hankinson contract was in March, 1902, but was dated back, so as to appear to have been made before the Latzke judgment. The evidence as to dating back is very unsatisfactory, and was brought out from Herman by direct question of his counsel. The fact is denied, and the evidence will hardly warrant the court in finding that such assignment was dated back."

While that action was not between the same parties as this, and while the principle of res judicata could not, for this reason, perhaps, be invoked, even though some of the issues were the same, and especial

ly was the issue of the antedating of the assignment involved in that case, yet we think we may take notice that the issue of antedating the contract was involved in that case, and that the evidence which tended to show such antedating was even stronger there than here, but, as the excerpt from the decision in that case shows, is not regarded as sufficient to show the fact of antedating the assignment. And so we conclude in this case, the evidence is entirely insufficient to show the antedating of the assignment, or to show fraud in procuring the same.

The testimony in this regard is not at all clear or convincing. We must therefore hold there is no fraud or conspiracy shown as claimed by plaintiff. We think the settlement made with Herman by plaintiff, whereby he received $100 from him, and gave him a quitclaim deed of the land, must be held to be a full and complete settlement for his interest in the land, if any he had, and his quitclaim deed must be held to have been validly and legally executed and delivered, and that it conveyed his interest in the land to Herman.

We think, also, that defendants John and Albertina may be considered the owners of the fee title of the land in question, free from any claims of plaintiff, by reason of having been in possession, under color of title, for a period of ten years, and paying the taxes during all that time.

It is true that for one year of the ten Herman paid the taxes, but we must hold, as the trustee for John and Albertina. At the time he paid the taxes for the year, he had money in his possession belonging to them, or one of them, which was greater in amount than the amount of the taxes for that year.

There is no dispute but that the $1,500 mortgage, above referred to, is a valid and subsisting lien upon the land in question, and it is so held.

We have examined all the errors assigned, and find none that would justify a reversal of the judgment. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to his costs and disbursements on appeal.

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. JOHN M. BAER et al., Petitioners and Relators, v. THOMAS HALL, as Secretary of State, et al., Respondents.

(179 N. W. 712.)

Elections

candidates for individual nominations may object to printing at head of same column of names of others indicating they represent another national party.

Candidates whose names appear upon a general election ballot in a column devoted to "individual nominations" may properly object to the printing at the head of the same column of the names of candidates (also nominated by individual petitions) in such a way as to indicate that the latter represent a national political party with which the plaintiffs do not affiliate.

Opinion filed October 19, 1920.

Original application for writ of injunction.
Writ granted.

Wm. Lemke, Special Attorney General, Barnett & Richardson, Clair F. Brickner, and Chas. L. Crum, for petitioners and relators.

Wm. Langer, Attorney General, and E. B. Cox, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents Secretary of State and County Auditors. No appearance for individual defendants.

PER CURIAM. In the petition herein the plaintiffs allege that they are candidates for certain offices to be voted upon at the approaching general election on November 2, 1920, having been nominated by individual petitions. The respondents are printing concerns holding contracts for printing ballots, the secretary of state, and the county auditors of thirty counties, for which the respondent printing companies are printing election ballots. It is alleged that there are three parties in the state entitled to representation upon the official ballot, and to have the names of their candidates printed in separate columns, to wit, the Republican party, the Democratic party, and the Socialist party; that the candidates of these parties are entitled to have their names printed in a column, separate and distinct from the plaintiffs; that the respondents are engaged in the preparation, printing, and distribution of ballots on which the names of the plaintiffs appear in a

is

column headed "Individual Nominations," and under the names of candidates for Socialist presidential electors; that the word "Socialist" follows the name of each candidate for Socialist presidential elector, and that the candidates are grouped, and at the right of the group printed the name "Debs;" that the petitioners are not Socialists, but individual candidates on individual nominations, who have in the past been Republicans, and who "intend to vote the Republican ticket, outside of their individual nominations;" that the printing and distribution of the ballot in the manner complained of will tend to confuse the voters and materially injure the chances of the petitioners in the election. The prayer for relief is for a temporary injunction restraining the action complained of, pending a hearing, and for a permanent injunction.

Upon the filing of the petition and the bond, a temporary restraining order was issued on October 16th, accompanied by an order to show cause, returnable October 18th.

Owing to the close proximity of the election, the attorney general was notified at the time of issuing the restraining order, and, to facilitate the early presentation of the matter, he waived further notice and consented to represent the official respondents. The individual respondents were not formally represented at the hearing on the return day.

The return and answer filed on behalf the official respondents denies that there are three political parties entitled to recognition as such on the official ballot, but contends that there are but two, the Republican and Democratic parties. It alleges that the Socialist party did not par ticipate in the general election of 1918, to the extent of voting for candidates for representative in Congress and state officers. Nor did it participate in the presidential primary held in March, 1920. These facts, with reference to its nonparticipation, are borne out by the abstract of votes on file in the office of the secretary of state.

A separate answer has been filed by the county auditor of Richland county, accompanied by a sample ballot printed in four columns. This ballot is being supplied Richland county. In this ballot the names of the "Socialist" electoral candidates appear in a column separate and apart from the names of the petitioners. As no objection is made to this form of ballot, the petition will be dismissed as to the defendant the county auditor of Richland county.

It developed on the argument that the defendant Glove Gazette Printing Company is supplying ballots to twenty-four counties, and but three of them are being furnished ballots in the form objected to. There is then no objection to the ballots at present being supplied in forty counties.

It appears that the presidential electors who are designated as "Socialists" upon the ballot were nominated by separate, individual petitions, in which the petitioning electors did not purport to act as a party. The only statement in the petition in any way indicating the po litical principles which it was desired to have represented on the ballot is the request that the name of the candidate "be designated 'Socialist.'" Each of the affidavits filed by the nominees states, however, that he is a candidate of the Socialist party, and each petitions that his name be designated "Socialist" upon the ballot.

Our conclusions upon this matter must, of necessity be briefly expressed, and only such reasons will be assigned as, in our opinion, are essential to demonstrate the correctness of the conclusions. The nomination petitions of the candidates for presidential electors who desire to be designated as "Socialist" on the ballot are individual nominating petitions, and do not purport to represent the action of the party as such taken in any convention of any kind or in any primary election. They are essentially individual nominations, and, as such, they are not entitled to any grouping which would represent concerted party action. Neither is there any warrant for printing after their names upon the official ballot the designation of a person who is commonly known to be the candidate of the Socialist party for President. Nor is there any warrant for the printing of a box beside the name of the person who is regarded as the candidate of the Socialist party for President, in which it purports to be possible for the voter to vote by one cross for as many candidates for presidential elector as there are electors to be elected. Comp. Laws 1913, § 959. In brief, under the form of nominations made, the candidates who have stated that they desire to be designated as Socialists on the ballot are nothing more nor less than individual nominees, and there is no warrant for any sort of grouping upon the ballot or for any type of designation thereon that will tend to connect them with the party known nationally as the Socialist party.