registers of deeds throughout the State of North Dakota, and have been so used since the organization of said local land offices and since the organization of said county, and have been so used by the occupants of said lands in correspondence with reference to the same, and are more frequently used than any other abbreviations or combinations of letters and figures to indicate parts of sections of land.”
The case was tried by the court, and at the trial defendant’s witnesses upon the question of usage were not cross-examined, and plaintiff offered no rebutting evidence on that branch of the case. The court found for the defendant upon the question of usage, and made its findings of facts substantially in the language of the amended answer, as above set out. Plaintiff excepted to such findings as follows: The evidence does not show a uniform usage; it only tends to show that such characters are known and used for private convenience by a class of experts. The evidence upon the question of usage is in the record. The trial court held that said descriptions of the several tracts of land were sufficient, and that the taxes based thereon were regular and valid taxes; but also found that certain irregularities occurred as to the sales which rendered the sales illegal, and adjudged that all of the sales were illegal, and that the tax deeds and certificates fell with the sales upon which they were made. Judgment was entered accordingly. Both parties appeal from the judgment.
The pivotal question presented is this: Was it proper and allowable, under established principles of law, for the defendant to allege and attempt to show, by testimony offered in the trial court, that the symbol writing as used in the assessment rolls was and is “generally understood by the people and taxpayers of said Barnes County and the State of North Dakota, and in those portions of the United States where the government system of survey of land is used.” We remark, first, that in a case recently decided (Powers v. Larabee, 2 N. D. 141,49 N. W. Rep. 726) this court, after a very careful consideration, held that descriptions essentially the same as those appearing here were insufficient. In that
