to pay interest and expenses. The following year, a good crop. was raised and a substantial amount was applied on the principal. The amount so applied on behalf of the plaintiff was at least $550. The plaintiff continued to work for the defendant by the year during 1917 and 1918; but in 1919 an arrangement was made between them whereby they would farm the defendant’s three quarter sections in equal partnership. To equalize the ownership of the live stock the plaintiff purchased of the defendant an interest in the defendant’s stock for $500, giving his note for that amount. The farm was operated by the partnership during that season, but in October the parties agreed to dissolve. At that time the crops had not all been sold and the expenses not all adjusted. They could not readily dispose of the land which they had jointly purchased, and it was not anticipated that the plaintiff could readily dispose of some items of personal property that he owned individually. So an arrangement was made, whereby the plaintiff would assign to the defendant his interest in the land contract and the defendant surrender the note representing the plaintiff's share of the initial payment; that the plaintiff would give to the defendant a bill of sale for the personal property which the defendant had transferred to him to equalize their interest in the live stock, the defendant returning the plaintiff’s note for the purchase price; that the plaintiff would leave his personal property on the place for the defendant to sell and credit the amount to be received to the plaintiff. The defendant kept all of the accounts that were kept. He did not sell the personal property promptly. The following spring, when the plaintiff requested a settlement, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff was indebted to him, whereupon this action was brought.
Upon this appeal both parties contend that the judgment is wrong. The principal objections of the defendant and appellant are:
(1) He contends it was agreed that the interest on his investment in the three quarter sections of land at $35 per acre and the taxes on this land were to be considered as expenses. The plaintiff contends that there was no such agreement. The trial court found with the defendant upon this feature of the contract and allowed three-fourths of the amount claimed, because the partnership continued for only three-fourths of the year. The appellant contends that a full year’s interest and taxes should have been allowed.
(2) The appellant claims that the trial court allowed the plaintiff
