the transaction alone. Whipple v. Barton, 3 Atl. Rep. 922; Briggs v. Hodgdon, 7 Atl. Rep. 387; Rogers v. Mining Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 721; Jennings v. McConnell, 17 Ill. 148; Kisling v. Shaw, 33 Cal. 425; Merryman v. Euler, 46 Am. Bep. 564.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BARTHOLOMEW, J. A brief statement of the pleadings is necessary for a proper understanding of the points raised by this appeal. The complaint states that plaintiff is the owner of a certain lot in the city of Fargo, and as his source of title avers that in December, 1881, Lafayette Hadley and Kate Irene Hadley, his wife, executed to plaintiff a mortgage on said lot to secure a certain sum of money, the mortgagors undertaking to pay all taxes that had been or might be assessed against the premises; that default was made in the payment of the amount secured by the mortgage, and the same was foreclosed and bought in by plaintiff for the amount due upon said mortgage, with costs and disbursements, and, no redemption thereof being made, plaintiff received a sheriff's deed for said lot; and in October, 1885, he commenced an action against the Hadleys to quiet title, and for possession; and that under the decision of the supreme court of Dakota territory rendered on or about March 2, 1889 (see Yerkes v. Hadley, 40 N. W. Rep. 340), the title to said lot was quieted in plaintiff, and he was in fact in possession; that during the whole of the time said action was pending the defendant, Crum, who was a duly admitted attorney in the courts of said territory, acted as the attorney for the said Hadleys, and conducted said litigation in their behalf, and as their sole attorney; that the Hadleys neglected to pay the taxes assessed upon srid lot for the year 1884, and in October, 1885, said lot was sold by the treasurer of Cass county for said delinquent taxes, and tax-sale certificate therefor issued to one Clifford; that about April 20, 1887, and while the defendant, Crum, was acting as the attorney of said Hadleys in said litigation, Clifford assigned said certificate to said defendant, and on October 6, 1887, defendant surrendered the same, and received a tax-deed for the lot, and subsequently took possession thereof, claiming title under the tax-deed. Plaintiff also alleged tender
