"And this plaintiff will convey the entire land described in the contract to Franks and he can convey his lot to Van Doom, or plaintiff will convey his lot to Van Doom and the balance to Franks, as the court may determine, all of which propositions are made by plaintiff in his offer to do absolute and complete equity in the premises"; and that that statement in said paragraph six of said bill of complaint offers to do absolute and complete equity in the premises, and defendant Franks says as he said in the answer, that he has never abandoned any claim and still insists that the profits Bignell made on the sale of the eighteen lots are due him and should be applied on the contract being foreclosed. 5. And defendant Franks further says that no settlement was ever made and that he never abandoned his claim for said profits, but made the payments on the contract according to the terms of the contract until the amount claimed to be due on the contract was less than the amount that he is entitled to have credited on that contract by said Bignell to keep said Bignell from foreclosing said contract and compelling him to lose the property by not being able to pay until the amount due on the contract being foreclosed was less than the amount Bignell agreed to credit on said contract, which has not been credited; that the property described in the deed from Franks and wife to Bignell is the same property described in the contract between Allen J. Buswell and Charles Ross, and that that property was divided up between Franks and Bignell as above set forth and that Franks was to get the property described in the contract being foreclosed and Bignell was to get the house-lot and six other lots; that Bignell was to convey to the City of Grand Haven, Wallace street or a piece of 33 feet on Washington street and 183 feet deep, and that the part that Bignell was to get was 150 feet on Washington street and running back 264 feet to Columbus street and the same width on Columbus street; that the balance of the frontage on Washington street was divided into lots to be conveyed by said Bignell when they were sold, and the property north of Columbus avenue was to be conveyed by said Bignell when they were sold, and that the proceeds of those sales of all the property other than the property described in the contract set forth in paragraph one of the bill of complaint, and the house and lots mentioned that Bignell took for the sum of $2,000.00 and the proceeds that were paid to defendant Bignell, were to be credited on Franks' contract; that Bignell actually sold to the City of Grand Haven that part allotted for De Spelder street for $400.00 in cash and that $400.00 was mentioned in the statement made to Franks April 10, 1910, as set forth in paragraph two of this cross-bill; that Bignell has appropriated to his own use the thirty-three feet that was allotted for Wallace street; that Columbus street has not been conveyed to the city for a street and that said Bignell uses the same for garden purposes and rents the same to various parties that the 18 lots over and above the lots described in the contract in paragraph one of the plaintiff's bill of complaint and the house lots and six lots Bignell took, leaving eighteen lots, there was one sold to Ringleburg for $275.00; one to Poel for $350.00; one to Dornbos for $275.00; one to Verberkmoes for $275.00; one to Van der Zalm for $275.00; one to Sluter, which Woody now owns, for $250.00; one to

Bruneau for $150.00, and another to Bruneau for $150.00; one to Koop-man for $150.00; one to Koeksema for $250.00, and one to Bignell for $250.00; one to Mulder for $190.00; one to Beekman for $250.00; one to Welch for $250.00; one to Zeldenrust for $250.00; one to Solms for $200.00; one to Kamhout for $200.00; one to Fisher for $150.00; which would amount to $4,540.00, included De Spelder street, but not including the value of the streets appropriated by said Bignell, and that the profit on the sale of said lots was at least $1,000.00; that when Bignell made his itemized statement set forth in paragraph two of this cross-bill, including sidewalk, filling, taxes, time and commission, Bignell recognized the contract defendant Franks now claims under and which was made shortly after March 16, 1907, but that the statement does not state the true amount that Bignell got for the lots sold; that Bignell only claims sales to the amount of $3,435.00, when, as a matter of fact, he sold the eighteen lots for $4,540.00; that the fact that the contract being foreclosed sets forth the price to Franks for the greenhouse and lots at $2,800.00, and Bignell on his statement set forth Franks' property at $2,700.00; that those facts recognized the contract that Franks and Bignell made just prior to the date of the contract being foreclosed and which contract they have always worked under.

6. That the amount of profits over and above the estimated price of said eighteen lots that Bignell actually received from the sale of said eighteen lots, amounting to $1,000.00, and the itemized statement Bignell gave Franks, set forth in paragraph two of this cross-bill, Bignell charges Franks with $375.50 for his time, besides $1,000.00 for commission, and the interest on the $6,473.63 up to the present time, amounting to $510.00; and the defendant Franks has been paying the interest on the contract being foreclosed and Franks claims that Bignell now owes him $222.87 over and above the whole amount due, set forth in plaintiff's bill of complaint to foreclose the contract mentioned in paragraph one of the bill of complaint.

7. In consideration whereof the defendant Franks prays the aid of the court in the premises and that the plaintiff may, if he can show why this defendant Franks should not have the relief prayed, without oath (all answer in oath being hereby waived), full, true and perfect answer make to all and singular the matters hereinbefore stated and charged; and

(a) That this defendant Franks may be decreed to have fully performed all the law requires of him in reference to the contract herein being foreclosed; and