section simply provides what shall be the form of any judgment thereafter to be rendered, declaring void a sale of lands for taxes. The second clause is a general provision for the reimbursement of all purchasers at tax-sales declared void by judgment of court. Its language is broad and comprehensive, and covers every tax-sale declared void by judgment of court, without regard to whether the sale was made before or after the act.” In our statute the recovery is limited to sales made as provided in the act. Minnesota had substantially the same law on her statute books for years before. The new enactment repealed the old, but if a recovery could not be had under the new law for void sales made under the old, then a limited number of cases would come neither under the new or the old law, and the court very properly said that the legislature never could have intended such a result. But this state had no such law until the enactment of chapter 132 of the laws of 1890, and there is no authority in that statute for applying its benefits to a tax-sale made in 1885.
We find no ground upon which respondent has any right of recovery in this case. The district court is directed to reverse its judgment, and dismiss the case; appellant to recover costs in both courts. Reversed. All concur.
Reporter: See Wallace v. County, 6 Dak. 1.
Aultman & Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. C. Ginn, Respondent.
1. Measure of Damages on Breach of Warranty.
The measure of damages on breach of warranty on sale of personal property being the difference between what it would have been worth had it been as warranted and its actual value, held reversible error to allow defendant’s counsel to ask a witness to testify as to the value of the machine, a self-binding harvester, on the assumption that it was useless, the evidence clearly showing that it could be, and was in fact,
