He denies it is any concern of Franks what he received for the part, Wallace street, or of the land condemned for De Spelder street, or any other part of the property sold by him, for it was his property and he could sell it or otherwise dispose of it as he saw fit, and did not have to account to Franks for what he got for it.

He again avers that he invested in this property deal, including interest on his money, $7,776.50 at his own risk, Franks assumed none, his profit including his work for two years in getting his lots in shape to sell and selling them was but $1,108.50, as shown in his statement of his deal with the property given to Franks as shown to the court, which he says is a very small profit to make for his risk, investment and labor and care.

He says Franks had made no investment, he bought the property from Mrs. Coburn, or her crowd, she holding it then for $6,000.00; he had paid nothing, not even interest, and owed her $6,473.63, which Bignell paid to save the entire loss to Franks under forfeiture proceedings then pending and nearly at end. Franks saved the greenhouse property and twelve lots on payment to Bignell of $2,700.00 with long and liberal time and has been able to make his payments and make good by Big-nell's liberality. He now has a property worth $10,000.00 and has made clear over $7,000.00. His profit is much more than Bignell's.

He admits he set off Columbus avenue across the property to sell the lots along it, and says Franks has much the advantage of it as he has his nine lots front upon it, but denies he received anything for it, except to sell his lots.

He denies as before that in making the statement he in any manner recognized Frank's claims under his parol contract. He made the statement for the purposes and under circumstances before stated, and again says it was a statement of his account with the property and not with Franks whose name is only mentioned in the enumeration of property sold. This stands at $2800.00 with $100.00 received, which was deducted and not paid, and reduces Bignell's gross profits from $1,185.50 to $1,008.50 only.

He again denies that in making this statement of his deal with his property he in any manner recognized the alleged contract claimed by Franks, and he says if Franks' alleged contract has any connection with the contract being foreclosed made subsequently, it became merged in and a part of the later contract, and no proof of it can be made as contradicting the written instrument.

He denies every averment of paragraph five not denied or explained above.

VI. Answering paragraph six, he denies Franks is entitled to any credit for the profits he has made on the sale of the eighteen lots mentioned, or from De Spelder street or for the sale of any other of his property, or for any other matter except all the payments on the contract for which he has due credit, reducing the amount due thereon from $2,700.00 when made to $250.00 and interest, or $750.00 and interest, April 10, 1918, there being $273.06 due September 6, by the terms of the contract, or $791.81, if the court shall determine the entire amount due by the forfeiture terms thereof.

He denies the court should make any decree giving Franks credit for the $1,000.00 claimed or for any other sum under the alleged parol contract merged. He denies each and every other allegation of paragraph six, not specifically answered in the foregoing.

Further answering Franks' cross-bill, plaintiff Bignell says by way of objection to the same in the nature of demurrer:

(a) That the pencil memorandum made by him and claimed by Franks to have been the contract on which he relies for his defense in this suit, and which was used by Mr. Soule in drawing the contract being foreclosed herein, and which was the only other contract, if it was a contract, made between him and Franks, was not signed by either him or Franks, is not alleged in the cross-bill to have been signed by him as the party sought to be charged therewith, and is void as in any manner affecting the title to land.

(b) That said pencil memorandum was not made or intended to be a contract but a memoranudm only to be used, as it was used, by a competent draftsman to make the actual contract between them, which is the contract being foreclosed in this suit, and which contains all that was contained in said pencil memorandum with the additional clause suggested by Franks of his right to remove crops growing, in case of forfeiture; that said pencil memorandum did not contain any clause or provision for selling the eighteen lots by Bignell and in any way accounting to Franks for the proceeds, and no parol proof can be made or heard of Franks' claim of the same being contained in the alleged contract, the pencil memorandum written by Bignell, as contradicting the terms of the written contract; and that if such a contract was made it became merged in the written contract afterwards made by he parties, and no proof, parol, or otherwise, can be made of its contents as affecting the later contract being foreclosed in this suit.

(c) That if any such contract, as claimed by Franks, was made that Bignell was to sell the eighteen lots and account to Franks for the proceeds, which is denied, the same is a trust in lands and no parol proof of it can be made.

(d) That if any such contract was made, as claimed by Franks, which is denied, and Bignell was indebted to Franks for any of the proceeds of the sale of the eighteen lots, he became so indebted in 1909 or 1908, when he gave Franks the statement of what he had made on the deal; Franks then had a right of action for his share of the proceeds going to him; more than six years have elapsed and the debt is barred by the statute of limitations, and the same cannot be used as a set-off to any part, or the amount due him from Franks admitted in his answer to Bignell's foreclosure bill.

This averment is made especially to plead the statute of limitations to Franks' alleged set-off against the amount admitted to be due Bignell on the admitted contract being foreclosed in this suit.