(concurring). The only question presented for determination in this case is one of construction of the state Moratorium Act. The question of the constitutionality of the act has in no manner been raised. Nor was it raised in Thress v. Zemple, 42 N. D. 599, 9 A.L.R. 1, 174 N. W. 85. I am frank to confess that my mind is not free from doubt in this case; but I am not prepared to say that the interpretation plaecd upon the Moratorium Act in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Bronson is erroneous. Such interpretation is in accord with the views expressed in Thress v. Zemple, supra.