Gordon Rogerson, Emily Rogerson, By Carey, Armstrong & Weadock,

Their attorneys.

(e) Answer of Walter F., and Esther R. Johnson to Cross-Bill of Defendants Rogerson.-(Caption.) Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, answering the cross-bill of defendants, Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, say:

1. They admit the allegations of paragraph one of said cross-bill.

2. They admit that a contract was entered into between these defendants and cross-plaintiffs, as alleged in said cross-bill, but do not know whether considerable thought was given the matter or not, but whether said cross-plaintiffs would have purchased the property if there had been but 40 feet, these defendants cannot admit or deny, but leave cross-plaintiffs to their proof.

3. They admit the allegations of paragraphs three, four and five of said bill of complaint, and admit that said defendant is entitled to the relief prayed for.

Walter F. Johnson, Esther R. Johnson, By John J. Gafill,

Their attorney. John J. Gafill, Attorney for Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson.

(f) Answer of Plaintiffs to Defendants Gordon Rogerson's and Emily Rogerson's Answer in the Nature of Cross-Bill.-(Caption.) Plaintiffs, in the above entitled cause, answering defendants Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, answering in the nature of cross-bill, say:

1. They admit the allegations in paragraph one of defendants' cross-bill.

2. They neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph two and leave the defendants to prove the same as they have in their cross-bill alleged.

3. Plaintiffs deny each and every material allegation alleged in paragraph three.

4. Plaintiffs deny each and every material allegation contained in paragraph four of said cross-bill.

5. Plaintiffs deny that defendants are entitled to the relief prayed for and pray that the said cross-bill may be dismissed and the relief prayed for therein denied.

Frank L. Clark, Hannah Clark,

Plaintiffs. Dated September 26, 1918. A. L. Moore,

Attorney for plaintiffs, Pontiac, Michigan.

(g) Court's Opinion.-(Caption.) Bill of complaint as originally filed in this cause, prayed for the reformation of a certain land contract and asked that the westerly 40 feet of the land described in the bill of complaint may be decreed to be the property of plaintiff. An amendment was subsequently made to the bill of complaint, praying that:

"In the event the court finds that loss or injury would result to Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, defendants herein, if the contract between plaintiffs and Abner T. Klees and Mabel M. Klees, which contract was assigned to Walter F. Johnson, be reformed, and further finds that the said Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson are innocent purchasers in good faith of the entire 80 feet of said premises from the said Walter F. Johnson and wife, then in that event, these plaintiffs pray that the court may determine the cash value of the said westerly 40 feet of land and that the said defendants, Walter F. Johnson and his wife, Esther R. Johnson, may be decreed to pay to these plaintiffs in cash an amount equal to the value of said westerly 40 feet as determined by said court in lieu of having said land contract reformed as herein prayed for, and that these plaintiffs may be decreed to have a lien in the nature of a mortgage upon said easterly 40 feet of the premises described in paragraph two of this bill of complaint to secure the payment thereof and that said sum shall be deemed to be due and payable forthwith; and that in the event of a decree for the cash value of said westerly 40 feet, that plaintiffs be decreed to be entitled to their reasonable costs and charges to be taxed against the said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson."

An answer and cross-bill is filed by the respective defendants contending that they acted in good faith in the various transactions alleged therein and that plaintiff is without remedy in a court of equity.

At the hearing it was substantially conceded that the defendants. Gordon Rogerson's and Emily Rogerson's contention was correct, and that they having purchased the entire premises in good faith, that they should not be disturbed in carrying out the terms of their contract with defendant Johnson in acquiring the entire premises.

The controversy in this case grows out of a peculiarly worded description of real estate which describes "the east one-half and the west one-half of a parcel of land, etc.," which taken as a whole includes an 80-foot lot. This lot was acquired by plaintiff, August 17, 1916, from one Clizbe containing this peculiar description in the deed. On the 28th of October, 1916, plaintiff sold on a land contract the easterly 40 feet of this lot to one Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, his wife, and made arrangements with the vendees to erect them a dwelling house upon this parcel. The scrivenor who drew the contract, however, included the whole description, viz.: "The east one-half and the west one-half" in the contract; his testimony being, however, that he used the description furnished him by the vendor, Mr. Clark. Subsequently Mr. Klees and wife arranged to sell their contract to Walter F. Johnson, one of the defendants herein, and accepted as payment for the same an automobile and a check for the balance. The transaction was evidenced by an assignment of their land contract to Mr. Johnson on the 3rd of November, 1917.

The testimony establishes the fact that at the time this assignment was made and before the keys to the automobile had been delivered and before the check had been cashed by Mr. Johnson, that he was advised by the scrivenor Mr. Cobb, Mr. Clark, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Valentine, the latter being agents for the respective parties, that he was acquiring the property owned by Mr. Klees, which included only the east 40 feet of this description, and not the westerly 40 feet. This fact, according to the testimony, was clearly brought to Mr. Johnson's attention and was made plain to him just what Mr. Klees actually owned.