In Dudgeon v. Haggart, 17 Mich., 279, the court said, citing Adair v. Adair, 5 Mich. 204:

"These instruments were made by the parties at the same time, and related wholly to the same subject-matter, and it was the duty of the court, and not the jury, to interpret them and, in so doing, to read and construe together as parts of a single transaction and not as instruments alien in their origin, object or subject-matter."

"Courts cannot substitute another contract for the one they made and force contract relations upon a party who had expressly refused to enter into them." Burwitz v. Jeffers, 103 Mich. 515.

2. Statute of Frauds.

The defendant's contention is that plaintiff wrote the following letter, and that it set up an agreement by which defendant is entitled to certain accounts:

"Mr. Franks: Our arrangement is this: You are to take the greenhouse and twelve lots, for $2,800.00, with rebate of $100.00 if you build a new greenhouse; I will take the house and six lots for $2,000.00; it leaves eighteen lots to be sold, for which I take ten per cent. of my investment, or will endorse either the whole profits or net profits on your contract.

Jamies Bignell."

Such a writing is void under the statute of frauds. It describes no land, it sets forth no terms of payment, determines nothing unless aided by parol testimony, and the writing required by the statute of frauds is void unless complete in itself, requiring no parol proof. Ebert v. Culler, 165 Mich. 75; Webster v. Brown, 67 Mich. 328; Gault v. Star-mont, 51 Mich. 638.

"This statute has frequently been before this court for construction, and it has been held that a contract which is void under the statute of frauds cannot be used for any purpose." Raub v. Smith, 61 Mich. 547, and cases cited.

Were it claimed that defendant's interest in the land was a trust, it would still come under the statute and cannot be proved by parol. Sherwood v. Davis, 168 Mich. 405; Douglas v. Douglas, 72 Mich. 99; Pierson v. Conley, 95 Mich. 624.

In Kulenkamp v. Goff, 71 Mich. 679, the court said:

"If this defense can be allowed, then, as beforesaid, in speaking of the claim of fraud, every promissory note, as between the parties thereto, and every contract in writing, is open to parol proof that it does not correctly represent the agreement made, and oral evidence may be given to contradict, alter or vary such written agreement. "

3. Statute of Limitations.

Defendant testified that all the lots were sold by April 10, 1910. He has never spoken to plaintiff since that date and made no claim for the money, and no credit was given to him on the contract for the sale of these lots. The bill was filed to foreclose this contract May 21, 1918, more than eight years after defendant says plaintiff owed him $1,000.00.

No claim is made that this alleged "other" contract was under seal, and anything possibly due on it is barred six years after due.

In Goodsole v. Jefferey, 202 Mich. 201, it was held:

"Where the dealings of parties relate entirely to and are covered by a special contract for the payment of money at certain periods agreed upon, there is no open and mutual account, so as to prevent the remedy thereon being barred by the statute of limitations."

(g) Authorities Cited by Defendants-Brief for Defendants.-The defendants review the testimony in the record and claim that as the trial court found the position taken by defendant Franks to be true and the circuit judge having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, this court is bound to bring to the support of the decision of the trial judge all reasonable presumptions which arrive from his superior opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses. Hintz v. R. R. Co., 132 Mich. 305. NELSON v. BREITENWISCHER, 194 Mich. 30-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

(b) Bill of Complaint.

(c) Exhibits "A" and "B," the Contracts Relied Upon.

(d) Motion of Defendant to Dismiss.

(e) Affidavit to Motion to Dismiss.

(f) Order Dismissing Bill.

(The Brief of Plaintiff and Defendant Has Not Been Included for the reason That the Appeal Has to Do with the Question of the Mortgage Tax Law Only.)

NELSON v. BREITENWISCHER, 194 Mich. 30-

(a) Brief Statement of Facts.-Bill of complaint was filed to foreclose a land contract for failure to abide by the terms of the contract. The defendant made a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with the statute requiring a tax to be paid on all land contracts. From an order denying the motion to dismiss, plaintiff appeals, which was reversed on appeal, (b) Bill of Complaint -

STATE OF MICHIGAN

In the Circuit Court for the County of Montcalm,

In Chancery.

Your orator, Clinton Nelson, of the City of Lama, County of Gratiot, and State of Michigan, respectfully shows unto this Honorable Court:

1st. That he is the owner in fee simple of the following described lands, to-wit, the east one-half (1/2) of the east one-half (J) of section twenty-two (22), and the west one-half (1/2) of section twenty-three (23), all in the Township of Home, being town twelve (12) north, of range six (6) west, of the value of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) and upwards.

2nd. That your orator obtained title to said lands by virtue of a certain deed of conveyance made on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1915, by James C. Walsh and Inez V. Walsh, husband and wife, of Grand Ledge, Michigan, which deed was duly recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds for the County of Montcalm, on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1915, in liber 163 of deeds on page 49, said deed being made subject to a certain real estate mortgage covering said lands held and owned by the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company in the sum of nine thousand five hundred dollars ($9,500), and also subject to a certain land contract executed on the 15th day of June, A. D. 1915, by James C. Walsh and Inez V. Walsh, husband and wife, to Louis F. Breitenwischer and Fannie H. Breitenwischer, of Lansing. Michigan.