her husband $11,000 in money for the said property in the condition it was before the erection of Person Court.
The evidence fairly shows that, at the time of the sale i in 1916, Andrew Person directed a deed to be made of lots 7 and 8 to his wife. It shows further that, when she was making a loan from the Dakota Trust Company on this property, it raised some objection to the title to these premises, the nature of which it is not necessary to here mention. She brought an action in the fall of 1916 to quiet her title thereto. This action was not determined until the fall of 1917, and at the time it was determined Andrew Person gave a deed of these lots to his wife. At the time she brought the action she did not have record title to lots 7 and 8. This, however, is immaterial, for, under § 8144, C. L, 1913, she could maintain the action if she had an estate or interest, lien or incumbrance upon the property, the title of which it was intended to quiet by the action. The plaintiff here was not made a party to that action, and there is no reason why it should have been. It had no interest in property, nor any lien upon it. Its claim, if any, against Andrew Person at that time had not been re- duced to judgment, and made a lien against this property, nor was it otherwise made a lien thereon. Plaintiff’s judgment was not recovered until December 17, 1919, when one for $3,071 was recovered and docket- ed in the office of the clerk of court of Ward county. It was unneces- sary, therefore, that the action to quiet title at the time it was brought should include the plaintiff. It is therefore not necessary to further con- sider any of the facts or circumstances connected with the bringing of the action to quiet title.
We turn now to the examination of the indebtedness, if any, which Andrew Person owed plaintiff at the time of the sale of the premises in 1916. On May 2, 1916, C. M. Knutson, J. H. Jensen, and Andrew Person (who the plaintiff maintains are the members of the Western Building Company, though Person earnestly denied he was ever a member thereof) executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note in the sum of $1,500 due three months after date. On the back of this note there is an indorsement of $30 accompanied by the notation: “Interest paid 8—3-16.” The amount is equal to the amount of the interest on the note from the date thereof for a period of three months thereafter at 8 per cent. per annutm. On the face of this note it is marked, “Renewed.” On August 3, 1916, the same parties executed their note to the plaintiff for $1,500. This note-is unquestionably a renewal of the note last mentioned. On this note are two $500 payments indorsed on the face thereof, the first
