remarks made by the plaintiff's counsel in his address to the jury. Evidence was adduced, and many remarks were made by both counsel in this case, which, considered by themselves, might well be termed prejudicially erroneous. However, without, in any manner commending such conduct, it is held that both parties are equally culpable, and the defendant is not in a position to complain. It is fair to assume that the jury, if influenced at all, were influenced one way as much as the other. The trial court of its own motion might properly have restrained such remarks. The court fairly instructed the jury upon the measure of plaintiff's recovery. The record, pursuant to the finding of the jury, discloses clearly a liability for violation of the statute. The judgment and order is affirmed, with costs.

CHARLIE CHRISTENSON, Respondent, v. MRS. MARGRIET GRANDY, Formerly Mrs. Margriet Myrdal, Ragnhildur Myrdal, Johann Vilhjalmur Myrdal, Einar Myrdal, et al., Appellants.

Guardian and ward

(180 N. W. 18.)

guardianship held to terminate within Statute of Limitations when minor attains majority Statute of Limitations held

to apply to suit to recover land conveyed by guardian.

Section 8923, Comp. Laws 1913, which provides: "No action for the recovery of any estate sold by a guardian can be maintained by the ward or any person claiming under him, unless it is commenced within three years next after the termination of the guardianship, or when a legal disability to sue exists by reason of minority or otherwise at the time when the cause of action accrues within three years next after the removal thereof,"-construed, and held: (1) That, within the purview of said statutes, the guardianship is terminated when the minor attains his majority.

(2) That in the instant case, wherein it appears that a guardian was duly appointed; that such guardian presented a petition setting forth certain alleged reasons why certain land belonging to the minor wards should be sold; that the county court made a decree upon such petition, awarding the land to the guardian to enable her to make conveyance to the purchaser, and required the guardian to furnish an additional bond in an amount exceeding the appraised value of the land; and that such guardian thereafter sold and conveyed the land to a purchaser, who paid the purchase price and commenced to exercise

full and complete control over the premises as owner, the limitation prescribed in such statute is applicable.

Opinion filed October 20, 1920. Rehearing denied November 9, 1920.

From a judgment of the District Court of Cavalier County, Kneeshaw, J., defendants Ragnhildur Myrdal and Johann Vilhjalmur Myrdal appeal.

Affirmed.

E. E. Fletcher and McIntyre & Burtness, for appellants.

The heirs of the entryman do not take by descent, but by purchase, and with the same force and effect as though their names were written in the patent. Hutchinson v. Caldwell, 153 U. S. 65, 38 L. ed. 356; Witenbrock v. Wheadon (Cal.) 60 Pac. 664.

Each one of the parties would receive an undivided one-fourth interest in the land under the patent. Ibid.

Under the ten-year statute that tacking of possession is not permissible. Streeter v. Frederickson, 11 N. D. 300; Wright v. Jones, 23 N. D. 191.

"Occasional cutting and removal of hay from unoccupied lands under a permit from one claiming title adverse to the plaintiff's grantor is not sufficient to constitute adverse possession so as to avoid plaintiff's deed." Page v. Smith, 33 N. D. 369; Johnson Land Co. v. Mitchell, 29 N. D. 528; State Finance Co. v. Beck, 15 N. D. 374.

The statute does not begin to run until the guardianship has been legally ended, which requires an order of the court having judisdiction of the guardianship, discharging the guardian. Gronna v. Goldammer, 26 N. D. 121; United States F. G. Co. v. Bank, 36 N. D. 16.

G. Grimson (Bangs, Hamilton, & Bangs, of counsel), for respond

ents.

"The guardianship terminates in all events at the arrival of the ward at majority, except for purposes of a final accounting and settlement with the ward." 21 Cyc. 50. See cases cited. Re Algier, 3 Pac. 849; Ganahl v. Sohr, 8 Pac. 650. Comp. Laws 1913, § 8880; being Comp. Laws 1887, § 6038.

CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J. This is an action to determine adverse claims to a quarter section of land in Cavalier county. The trial court ren

dered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants Ragnhildur Myrdal, Johann Vilhjalmur Myrdal, and Einer Myrdal have appealed and demanded a trial de novo in this court.

The complaint is in the usual form, and sets forth that the plaintiff has an estate in fec simple in the premises in controversy and is in possession thereof; and that the defendants claim certain estates or interests in or liens or encumbrances on said property adverse to plaintiff. The prayer for judgment is: That the defendants be required to set forth their claims and that such claims be adjudged null and void; that title be quieted in the plaintiff as to all claims of the defendants; and that the defendants be forever debarred and enjoined from asserting the same. Ragnhildur Myrdal, Johann Vilhjalmur Myrdal, and Einer Myrdal, in their answer, aver that they are the owners of a threefourths fee simple estate in the land by reason of (their) being the heirs of one Einar E. Myrdal; and by virtue of the patent for said premises issued by the United States government to "the heirs of Einar E. Myrdal, deceased," on December 21, 1891. To this answer plaintiff interposed a reply, wherein he averred that, in proceedings had in the county court of Cavalier county, the said defendant Margriet Myrdal was on August 26, 1891, duly appointed guardian of the said abovenamed three appellants; and that subsequently it was ordered by the county court of Cavalier county in said proceeding that the land in controversy be awarded to the said Margriet Myrdal, with privilege to sell the same at public or private sale; that said final decree so adjudging was entered on March 7, 1892; that the said Margriet Myrdal did on March 30, 1892, in pursuance of said order, convey said premises to one Frank W. Wilder by warranty deed, which was duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Cavalier county, North Dakota, on April 12, 1892; that said Wilder paid to the said Margriet Myrdal the sum of $710 for her share and for the shares of said three appellants in and to said land; that the said land was subsequently sold and conveyed to various parties by instruments of conveyances duly recorded; that the plaintiff purchased the same on December 11, 1914, from the then record owner thereof; that since the purchase by said Wilder on March 30, 1892, said Wilder, and those holding under him or them, have been in possession of said premises and have paid all taxes assessed against the premises. The said reply further averred,

among other things, that the said defendants are barred by various statutes of limitation, including § 8923, Comp. Laws 1913, from maintaining an action for the recovery of said land; and that appellants have been guilty of laches in asserting their alleged rights to said land, and hence are estopped from now asserting such rights.

The material facts are undisputed, and may be summarized as follows: In May, 1890, one Einar E. Myrdal and his wife and children moved on the premises in controversy. Myrdal had entered such premises under the United States pre-emption laws. On April 12, 1891, Einar E. Myrdal died, leaving surviving him as his heirs at law his widow, Margriet (now Margriet Grandy), and his three children, the appellants in this case. Shortly after the death of her husband, Mrs. Myrdal and the children moved to the vicinity of Gardar in Pembina county, some 12 or 15 miles distant from the land in controversy, at which latter place her deceased husband owned a 40-acre tract of land. Judging from her testimony she had little or no faith in the land in controversy. It seems that she had virtually made up her mind to abandon it, and it is very doubtful if she ever would have made final proof thereon if it had not been for Bjorn Bjornson, who apparently had some claim against the deceased, Einar E. Myrdal; and, through his solicitation and assistance, Mrs. Myrdal was induced to make final proof thereon. Bjornson took the matter up with one Blichfelt, who at that time was engaged in the real estate business at Langdon, and induced him (Blichfelt) to advance the necessary moneys to pay the government the purchase price and the costs and expenses incident to the final proof. It also appears that these parties, after the final proof had been made, induced Mrs. Myrdal to make application to the county court to be appointed guardian of the three minor children. She was so appointed guardian by order of the county court on August 21, 1891. On December 21, 1891, patent was issued by the United States government, conveying the land to the "heirs of Einar E. Myrdal, deceased.” The petition for the appointment of a guardian was entitled, "In the Matter of the Estate of Einar E. Myrdal, Deceased." The petition, among other things, averred that said minors were residents of Cavalier county, and "that they have no father living, or other legal guardian residing in the state of North Dakota; that said minors have real estate to the value of about $500" situated in the county of Cavalier. The

order for appointment of guardian was entitled, "In the Matter of Appointing a Guardian for Ragnhildur, Johann, Wilhelm, and Einar Myrdal, Minors." The order required Margriet Myrdal to give a bond in the sum of $1,000. After such bond had been given and approved by the county court, letters of guardianship (entitled as the order) were issued to said Margriet Myrdal. Thereafter an order was made appointing appraisers. Such order was entitled, "In the Matter of the Appraisement of the Estate of Ragnhildur, Johann, Wilhelm, and Einar Mrydal, Minors," The order recited that it is made "on the application of the guardian of the said minor children of Einar E. Myrdal, deceased," and ordered that three named persons be appointed "to estimate and appraise all the estate of the decedent, except such as is by law exempt from appraisement." Warrant to appraisers was issued accordingly. The inventory returned and filed by the appraisers recites that it is "a true and correct inventory of all the real estate and all the goods, chattels, rights, and estate of Einar E. Myrdal, deceased, which have come to the possession or to the knowledge of the undersigned guardian and the appraisers of said estate." (The only property mentioned in the inventory is the real estate in controversy, which is appraised at $500. It is stated that there is no money, or personal property.) The inventory is verified by Margriet Myrdal. The verification attached thereto recites: "Margriet Myrdal, by appointment of said county court, guardian of the estate of said Einar E. Myrdal, deceased, being duly sworn, etc." Thereafter Margriet Myrdal filed a petition in the county court, wherein she averred, among other things:

"That your petitioner has been duly appointed guardian of the minor children and estate of the late Einar E. Myrdal, and that letters of guardianship have been issued by this honorable Court to your petitioner on the 27th day of August, 1891, as will appear, reference being had to the record in this

cause;

"That said deceased left nothing but one real property valued at about five hundred dollars ($500) which is now in the possession of your petitioner;

"That your petitioner and Ragnhildur, Johann, Wilhelm, and Einar Myrdal, minors, of whom the petitioner is guardian, are the only heirs entitled to the estate of said deceased;

"That the property so left by said deceased consists of the following