plowed and prepared for crop for the year of 1921, 325 acres of land, in addition seeded, in the fall of 1920, 90 acres in rye; further that, by reason of the payments made by the defendant to plaintiff, he was unable to pay the interest and principal of the Prosser mortgage and the taxes for 1919 and 1920; that the interest on the Prosser mortgage has been paid by the plaintiff and an extension of time secured by the plaintiff for the payment of such mortgage. It further alleges that the forfeiture clause in the contract is unjust; that the liquidated damages therein specified are void and in the nature of a penalty, since they in no manner furnish an accurate measure of damages which plaintiff might sustain by reason of defendant's defaults.
The action was tried May 9 to 11, 1921. The trial court found that the improvements made by defendant did not enhance the value of the land to any great extent, excepting the well to the extent of at least $600; in general, concerning farming methods, that defendant has acted in good faith and has gone to large expense in order to farm the land; that the price received for the 1920 grain is the price to be credited the defendant for the reason that he requested the grain to be held; that the defendant is in default concerning the 1919 and 1920 taxes, excepting as to the portion of the latter not yet delinquent, and in the payment of interest on the Prosser mortgage for 1919 and 1920 in the sum of $1,010, which was paid by plaintiff on December 1, 1920; that there was no understanding that plaintiff was to make payments of interest or principal on such mortgage when due or that no default would be claimed in the event of defendant's failure to pay the interest or the mortgage; that it was, however, a part of the agreement that plaintiff would do what was necessary to renew the Prosser mortgage if defendant was unable to pay the same; that plaintiff frequently requested defendant in 1920 to pay the interest on such mortgage and the taxes; that the Montana and Benson county properties, at their present market values, and considering the amount of money defendant has put into the same, are not sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the use and occupancy, or for the rental value, of the land involved, or more than enough to pay him for the loss in damages actually sustained, if he be compelled to take back the land. The court further finds, pursuant to a statement incorporated in the findings, that the total interest accrued on the purchase price of the land up to December 1, 1920, amounted to $2,456.94; that the defendant's debt, including 1919 and 1920 taxes and the amount
