interest should be computed on contract, it is agreed that the defendant should pay the plaintiff $6,156.50, and the parties otherwise perform concerning the deed, mortgage, and security, and that the plaintiff should commence immediately in the district court a suit for specific performance or strict foreclosure of the contract for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication of the issue in dispute between them speedily and without unnecessary expense.
This action was accordingly commenced for the strict foreclosure of the contract. Trial was had on November 15, 1920, and some evidence was introduced to the effect that in the fall of 1919 the defendant sowed rye on the premises; that from November, 1919, to May, 1920, he occupied some of the buildings on the premises but his family did not move thereupon until May, 1920; that in 1920 the crop was planted and harvested by the defendant. On November 29, 1920, the trial court entered a preliminary decree, upon findings made, to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to interest from November 1, 1919, adjudicating the amount to be $2,343.78, and that, in the event of the defendant’s failure to pay such amount with interest, the plaintiff might apply, after December 15, 1920, to the court, upon two days’ notice, for a final decree terminating the contract.
On December 15, 1920, the defendants filed in the trial court a surety bond in the sum of $3,000 to pay costs and damages, and, finally, on February 15, 1921, this appeal was taken from the decree. Briefs of the parties were filed on April 27, 1921, and the cause argued before this court on May 6, 1921. The defendants contend that the court erred in its determination concerning the interest; that it had no authority to extend the issues beyond the determination of the fact concerning interest; that the plaintiff has no right to a decree of foreclosure and that the so-called decree entered is void.
We are of the opinion that the court properly determined concerning the item of interest. The original contract specifically provides for interest to be paid from November 1, 1919. Pursuant to this contract, a sale was made and possession taken. In no manner have subsequent agreements modified or limited this original agreement concerning the interest. The other contentions are obviously without merit. The parties stipulated for an action of foreclosure. The decree entered by the trial court was proper. The defendants by this appeal obviously have secured an extension of time. It simply remains for this court, in the interest of the adjudica-
