Groeneveld

A ppeal from judgment for plaintiff for $1,000.

The verified complaint alleges:

The contract recites that “As there is a mortgage now against the cows these payments are to be applied on it” until the defendants “take same up.”

It is contracted that the stock and increase are to remain on the ranch “where now located” until paid for. Plaintiff was “granted the use of the corrals and barns,” etc.

Appellants agreed to erect a three-room cottage for the milkers and make other specified improvements.

It was also provided that if plaintiff “fails to meet Ms payments as they become due then he forfeits all money paid and his interest in said cattle reverts,” etc., “at their option.”

The agreement provides that appellant was to care for said stock “in a dairymanlike manner” and to keep feed and expense bills paid.

II. That plaintiff entered into possession of the property July 31, 1923, and on August 9, 1923, defendants dispossessed him.

III. That defendants did not apply the payments to the mortgage nor build the cottage.

IV. That plaintiff has performed all obligations, etc., “except those he was prevented from performing by defendants. ’ ’

V. That plaintiff has paid $1,000;…