5. Plaintiffs further state that upon returning from the farm to their home on the same day they were again told by the said Anthony Michalski that the said farm was purchased by his father for four thousand ($4,000.00) dollars and the live stock and farming implements for the sum of four hundred ($400.00) dollars and that it was then and at the said time and place worth the sum of forty-four hundred ($4,400.00) dollars. That these statements and representations were relied upon by these plaintiffs and believed by them to be true.

6. That then and there in consideration of the truthfulness of the representations and statements so made by the said Anthony Michalski, they agreed to exchange and trade the equity in their land contract for the above described farm, and plaintiff Toefil Banski further states that an oral agreement was then and there made between the said parties whereby plaintiffs were to assign their interest in their land contract to the said Anthony Michalski, and that the said Anthony Michalski was to assign to them his interest in the land contract for this property, paying to them the difference in value between the two pieces of property amounting to the sum of one hundred fifty ($150.00) dollars. That the said Anthony Michalski then drew up a paper in the English language purporting to be an agreement embodying the terms as agreed upon, and that plaintiffs were then informed by the said Anthony Michalski that the said paper contained all the statements and representations made by him as above stated, and all the terms of the proposed trade. That these plaintiffs are unable to read or write the English language and again relied upon the honesty an dtruthfulness of the said Anthony Michalski and believed that he told the truth regarding the contents of the said paper and upon his request the said plaintiff Teofil Banski. signed the said agreement for himself and his wife, a copy of which said agreement is hereto attached and marked Exhibit "A."

7. That thereafter, on the 20th day of June, 1917, the said plaintiffs, still believing and relying upon the representations and statements made by the said Anthony Michalski, actually assigned and transferred all their right, title and interest in and to their property above described to the said Anthony Michalski, a copy of which assignment is hereto attached marked Exhibit "B." Plaintiffs further state that instead of receiving an assignment of the land contract for the farm property from the said Anthony Michalski, he, the said Anthony Michalski handed to the plaintiff Teofil Banski an assignment of the said land contract for the farm property signed by one John Grochala, a total stranger to these plaintiffs and a bill of sale to the live stock and farm implements to be found on said farm, also signed by the said John Grochala.

8. Plaintiffs further state that upon inquiring of the said Anthony Michalski as to the identity of the person who signed those papers as J. Grochala, the said Anthony Michalski informed them amid a great deal of derision and laughter that that was his father who had owned the farm. Plaintiffs then and there immediately suspected that all was not right with the deal they had just made, and the plaintiff Teofil Banski further states that he immediately went out to the said farm and inquired of the adjoining farm owner as to the value of the farm, land and quality of the soil and was informed and believes it to be true that the said farm land is worth not to exceed forty-five ($45.00) dollars per acre and that the soil is of very inferior quality and not easily adaptable for farming purposes. That neither the said Anthony Michal-ski nor his father ever had any interest in or title to the said property. Plaintiff further states that the said live stock and farm implements found on the said farm are not worth more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars.

9. Plaintiffs further represent that all the representations and statements so made by the said Anthony Michalski, aforesaid, were false and fraudulent and that the said Anthony Michalski well knew at the time of making these statements and representations that the same were false, that he made such statements and representations to deceive these plaintiffs and as an inducement for them to make the trade of their property as aforesaid; that they relied upon the said statements and were induced to part with their property. That by the means of said statements and representations they were wrongfully and fraudulently deprived of their said property by the scheming and machinations of the said Anthony Michalski. That the said farm property is worth not more than twenty-six hundred ($2,600.00) dollars, the vendee's interest being not more than six hundred ($600.00) dollars; that the equity of these plaintiffs in the contract assigned by them to the said Anthony Michalski is more than fifteen hundred ($1,500.00) dollars over and above the total consideration received by them in the exchange with the said Anthony Michalski.

10. Plaintiff Apolonia Banski further represents that she did not freely and voluntarily assign her interest away in their said property, and that she had no voice in the making of this deal, of the terms or conditions thereof; that she was persuaded to sign her rights away in her said property by her said husband Teofil Banski, against her will and without receiving any benefit, value or consideration for her equity in her said property. That she has received no money, property, property rights, nor anything of value whatsoever for assigning away her property rights, as will more fully appear by the assignment of the said farm property, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked Exhibit "C."

11. Plaintiffs further state that the said contract for the sale of said farm, is not assignable without the consent of the vendor therein endorsed in writing thereon, as. appears by the terms of the said contract a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof. That said assignment is neither legal nor valid and that it is absolutely void and without effect, not having been properly witnessed or acknowledged, according to the statute in such case made and provided. That the said assignment does not vest any interest in the plaintiffs whatsoever, the property therein being deficiently described as: The west half of the east half of the northwest of quarter section four, in town north of range fifteen east, containing forty (40) acres more or less.