(b) That the plaintiff, James Bignell, being decreed to pay the said defendant Franks the sum of $227.87, the said amount being the difference between what Bignell claims is due on said contract and the amount Franks claims that he is entitled to have endorsed on said contract; and

(c) That the court decree that the defendant Franks has actually paid the $222.87 over and above the contract price, either in cash or under the actual terms of the agreement between Bignell and Franks in reference to the division of all of the property; and

(d) That the defendant may have such other and such further relief in the premises as shall be agreeable to equity and good conscience.

James Franks, By Lillie, Lillie & Lillie,

Attorneys for defendant Franks. Business Address: Grand Haven, Mich.

(d) Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Cross-Bill.-(Caption.) Answer of plaintiff to defendant Franks' cross-bill.

Plaintiff answers this cross-bill paragraph by paragraph, reserving his lawful exceptions and objections thereto hereinafter set forth, as follows:

I. Answering paragraph one, plaintiff says that Franks was being foreclosed out of the entire property; he had bought it for $6,000.00 on contract, had paid nothing, interest to the amount of $473.50 had accrued, and $6,473.63 was due; Mr. Coburn had also signed his note for $500.00 which he had not paid, in winter and early spring of 1907, and wanted Bignell to furnish the money to buy the property and pay Mrs. Coburn, and let him save something from it.

They had several talks about the terms of their deal. Bignell admits he wrote Franks a letter suggesting several propositions on which they might deal, but he denies he wrote or authorized or ever saw the letter claimed by Franks. He never made a proposition that Franks should have all the net profits of the deal. He admits after he wrote the letter he did to Franks and before Franks deeded to him, they had an agreement how they would deal, which was that Franks should deed the entire property to him, he would sell back the greenhouse and twelve lots to Franks for $2,800.00 with $100.00 deduction if improvements were made, and nothing was said or considered that Franks had any ether interest in the property, and he made a pencil memorandum in writing of the substance of the agreement, to which Franks agreed. This memorandum and the contract being foreclosed are all the contracts made between them.

Franks afterwards deeded to him the entire land and he raised the money and tendered it to Mrs. Coburn which, after litigation, she accepted, and deeded the land to Franks, April 5, 1907.

This writing Bignell made was taken by him and Franks to Mr. Soule's office after the trouble with Mrs. Coburn was over, April 10, 1907, and from it Mr. Soule drafted the contract for sale of the greenhouse property to Franks, which is being foreclosed in this suit, and this contract contains all that was in that memorandum contract, and the addition that in case of foreclosure Franks should have the right to harvest the crops he had growing. This was put in at Franks' request after Mr. Soule had asked them both if the contract read over to them contained everything in regard to their deal with the property, to which they both assented.

The deed from Franks to Bignell containing a clause that it conveyed the Franks' interest under a contract, and all that they should afterwards acquire, was made March 19, the deed from Mrs. Coburn to Franks, April

5, and the contract based on the memorandum made by Bignell before the deed was made, was made April 10, all in 1907.

Bignell did not pay Mrs. Coburn until he had the deed from Franks, and Franks would not deed to Bignell until he had the contract to buy the greenhouse property.

This memorandum made by Bignell was left on Mr. Soule's desk as embodied entirely in the contract finally made by the parties closing their deal.

Possession of the entire property except the greenhouse part was turned over to Bignell at once after the deal was closed, he paid his taxes thereon, and has had it ever since except as he has sold it.

Bignell denies everything in paragraph one, except as embodied in the above.

II. Bignell answers paragraph two, viz.: He admits making and giving to Franks the statement therein set forth, but denies that said statement shows or was intended to show any statement of account between him and Franks in regard to their deal, and he says said statement came to be made under circumstances, viz.: Sometime in 1909, he thinks, condemnation proceedings were taken by the city to take a strip 33 feet wide off the east side of the entire property for half of De Spelder street. He, owning the property, was made a party; he was anxious to make the best showing he could of the cost and value of the entire property to get as large award of damages as possible, and for that purpose made a statement used in the Probate Court having the proceedings in charge. He secured an award of $400.00. Sometime after, he thinks it was when Franks paid on the contract to April 10, 1910. Franks asked him how much he had made on the deal, all the lots being then sold. He and Franks had been friendly to that time and no claim had been made that everything was not settled between them, and he told Franks he would make him a statement and he copied the statement he had used in the Probate Court and gave it to Franks. That is the statement set forth in paragraph two.

He says that after he bought the land from Franks he went to work at once to put it into shape to sell and did sell the lots. He spent the better part of two summers filling in front for the sidewalk, opening Columbus avenue through the center and filling it, to sell lots fronting on it, getting the sidewalk built along the entire Washington avenue front and paying for it, and putting in his time getting the land surveyed and selling the lots, and put the value of his work at but $357.50. He paid Mrs. Coburn for her deed to Franks, all Franks had bought the property for the accrued interest Franks had not paid, $6,473.63, interest on his money was $510.00; he made other payments necessary to get the lots in shape to sell and in making the deal and in care of the property and selling the lots, $1,302.90, making his investment and risk (it was not agreed or understood Franks would reimburse him for loss, if any), $7,776.53. He charged the property commission or profit, $1,000.00, in addition to his work, and with his work, $359.50, makes his charge to the property, not to Franks, $1,359.50, and the balance struck in the statement shows a shortage of $249.00, which deducted from his gross charge for work and profits of $1,359.50, leaves him as payment for his risk and labor but $1,108.50. He says this amount as payment for his risk and labor and care is not a gross profit and not unconscionable under all the circumstances.