VIII. Plaintiff further alleges and expressly charges the truth to be, that the said Louis P. Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler, and the said Francis M. Byers, who claim that they have sold said land, and purchased the same, that the said Byers, if he did purchase said land, purchased it with full knowledge of the contract interest of the said plaintiff and that said pretended sale was a mere sham and fraud and made for the purpose of cheating and defrauding this plaintiff out of his interest in said land.

IX. Plaintiff further alleges that by virtue of Act No. 91 of Public Acts of Michigan for the year 1911, it expressly provided that a tax of 50 cents on each $100 due and unpaid on a land contract should be paid to the county treasurer of the county where said lands were situated, and that until the said sum was paid, the holder of said contract could take no steps to foreclose said contract, or to in any way enforce payment of the same until said tax was paid, and plaintiff alleges that at the time of the service of said notice so served upon him by the said Clark H. Gleason that said tax had not been paid by the said Louis P. Ohler, or by anyone in his behalf, and that by reason of such failure to pay said tax, that the service of said notice was a mere nullity and in no way affected the right of this plaintiff in said land.

X. Plaintiff alleges that the said Louis P. Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler, and Francis M. Byers, are conspiring together to cheat and defraud this plaintiff, and this plaintiff fears that unless they and each of them are restrained by the order and injunction of this court, that they may seek to sell and convey said farm to some innocent purchaser, and thus render it more difficult for this plaintiff to recover possession of said farm. For as much as this plaintiff is without remedy in the premises except in a court of equity, this plaintiff prays:

(a) That the said Louis P. Ohler, Agnes A. Ohler and Francis M. Byers, who are made party defendants to this bill, make full, true and direct answer to the same, but not under oath (their answers under oath being hereby waived).

(b) That the pretended forfeiture, claimed by the said Louis P. Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler against this plaintiff of said contract, be set aside and held for naught, and that this plaintiff be allowed to proceed with the execution of said land cotract so assigned to him, as hereinbefore stated.

(c) That the said Louis P. Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler be decreed to accept at the proper time and in the proper manner of the performance of said contract by said plaintiff according to its terms.

(d) That the said Louis P. Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler and Francis M. Byers may be restrained by the order and injunction of this court, from in any manner selling, mortgaging, or disposing of plaintiff's interest in said land and premises until the further order and direction of this court.

(e) That any deed that may have been executed by the said Louis P Ohler and Agnes A. Ohler to the said Byers, of said premises, be set aside, or if it shall be determined by this court that an actual sale was made to the said Byers in good faith on his part, and for a valuable consideration, without notice of the rights of plaintiff therein, then said plaintiff prays that an accounting may be had between himself and the said Louis P. Ohlei and Agnes A. Ohler as to the amount of the equity of plaintiff in said lands, and that the said Louis P. Ohler and the said Agnes A. Ohler be decreed to pay to this plaintiff such a sum as plaintiff's equity may be in said land.

(f) And that said plaintiff may have such other and further relief in the premises as equity may require and as to this court may seem meet.

And plaintiff will ever pray, etc.

JEREMIAH C. HUBBELL, HARTLEY E. HENDRICK, Attorney for Plaintiff, 208 Houseman Bldg., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

(Verification.)

(c) Answer to Bill.- (Caption.) The defendants answering say:

1. Defendants Ohler admit the allegation of the first clause of said bill as to the title and ownership of the land therein described and the execution of a contract of sale thereof, and that Exhibit A is substantially a copy thereof. They do not admit the interpretation of said contract is correct as set out in said bill. Defendant Byers has no knowledge sufficient to answer, except the ownership of the land, and that he admits.

2. Defendant Louis P. Ohler admits on information the assignment of the contract, but has no knowledge of the correctness of Exhibit B. The other defendants have no knowledge sufficient to answer.

3. Defendant Louis P. Ohler admits payment of taxes and interest to him at one time, and that he gave a receipt for them, but he has forgotten the date and the name of the party, but he supposes it was plaintiff. The money came to him in checks of Hartley E. Hendrick. The other defendants have no knowledge sufficient to answer.

4. Defendants have no knowledge of the allegations in the fourth clause of the bill.

5. Defendant Byers admits he is in possession of said farm, is living thereon and is working it, and that he bought it and that he told a man who came there recently said facts, but he denies telling him he paid forty-two hundred dollars for it and assumed a mortgage of twenty-two hundred dollars; that he told him he traded a stock of goods for it he once was offered in trade forty-two hundred dollars for, and that it would cost him about four thousand dollars, all told, in trade.

The other defendants have no knowledge, except they admit the sale of said farm to defendant Byers.

6. They admit the allegations of clause six of said bill.

7. Defendant Louis P. Ohler denies that a legal tender of the interest due February 1, 1919, was ever at any time made to defendant by plaintiff. Whether or not he has paid any money into court, he has no knowledge.

The other defendants have no knowledge sufficient to answer.