from the plaintiff. According to the evidence, Linde, the notary public, was well acquainted with the plaintiff, so there is no reason to believe that a mistake was made by the notary public; and not the slightest reason has been shown why the notary should have made a false certificate. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence bearing on this feature of the case, we are entirely satisfied that the plaintiff has wholly failed to establish that his signature to the contract produced in evidence is a forgery, and that the notarial certificate is false. And, in our opinion, the findings of the trial court to that effect are incorrect. We do not, . however, deem this of controlling importance so far as the rights of the parties in this action are concerned. ‘The defendant Hodge does not contend that he put up his money with the intention of acquiring the premises in controversy for himself. On the contrary, he disclaims any such intention. He says that all he wanted and wants was and is, his money and interest thereon. And it is quite apparent from his testimony that his real purpose in going into the deal was to aid the plaintiff and save to him whatever equity or interest he had in the land. And it is further apparent that the only reason he had for wanting plaintiff’s brother-in-law, At del Hadey, to join as a purchaser was to insure that the contract of purchase would be carried out, and the money invested by Hodge repaid to him. In other words, Hodge desired to have Hadey act in a sense as a surety. There is no contention that the contract of purchase has been canceled in the manner provided by statute. And, construing the evidence as a whole, we are not prepared to say that the plaintiff has abandoned or surrendered whatever interest or claim he had in the land by virtue of the arrangement made at the time Hodge took over the interest of Ghusm in the premises. In other words, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff still has an equitable interest in the premises, and is entitled to an opportunity to pay the defendant Hodge whatever is due him, and that, upon such payment being made, the plaintiff is entitled to a reconveyance by Hodge.
Upon the record before us, however, we do not feel justified in attempting to decide the controversy with respect to the 1915 crop. The evidence upon this part of the controversy is, as a whole, so unsatisfactory that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. We are entirely satisfied, however, that the findings of the trial court as to the amount of grain raised and the proceeds de- rived by the defendant Hodge thereon, and the expenses incurred by
