II. These defendants have not sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph two, and therefore neither admit nor deny the same, but leave plaintiffs to the proof.

III. In answer to paragraph three of said bill of complaint these defendants say:

They admit that plaintiffs entered into a contract with Abner T. Klees and wife, under date of October 28, 1916, but deny that the contract was for the sale of the easterly forty (40) feet of the land; that as to the remainder of said paragraph, these defendants have not sufficient information to form a belief and therefore neither admit nor deny the same, but leave plaintiffs to their proof.

IV. In answer to paragraph four of said bill of complaint these defendants say:

They admit that Abner T. Klees and Mable Klees, his wife, assigned their interest in a contract for the sale of lands described in paragraph two, to these defendants, but deny that there was an understanding that said Klees and wife had an interest in only 40 feet of said land, and that the assignment was made with that understanding, and deny that they had any knowledge except such as was expressed in the contract itself.

V. In answer to paragraph five of said bill of complaint, these defend ants say: These defendants deny any knowledge other than that expressed in the written agreement between Abner T. Klees and wife and plaintiffs, which agreement was duly and legally assigned to these defendants and consented to by plaintiffs, they deny that there was any Intention on the part of these defendants of defrauding, harming Injuring and cheating plaintiffs out of their said property.

That they, under date of December 5, 1917, entered into a contract with Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, his wife, to sell and convey to them the aforesaid lands for the total consideration of five thousand ($5,000) dollars.

They deny that these defendants knew that plaintiffs were selling the easterly 40 feet of said land, and deny that they were seeking to take any advantage whatever of said plaintiffs; they admit they claimed to be the owner of the eighty feet, and admit that they refused to permit the alleged mistake to be corrected, as there was no mistake or misunderstanding on the part of these defendants.

VI. In answer to paragraph six of said bill of complaint, these defendants say: That if the intention was any different from that expressed In the contract, they had no knowledge of it, and they deny that they purchased anything other than the contract expressed on its face.

VII. In answer to paragraph seven of said bill of complaint, these defendants say: They deny that there was any wrong or fraud involved in the transaction itself, and while they claim to own eighty (80) feet of land, instead of forty (40) feet, it is because that was the quantity purchased.

VIII. In answer to the eighth paragraph of said bill of complaint, these defendants deny that the contract should be modified or changed in any respect whatever; that if any mistake was made in the contract prior to its delivery to Abner T. Klees, these defendants had no knowledge of it, and the mistake was one that plaintiffs themselves made, and that the defendants herein are innocent parties, and should not be called upon to suffer for the mistake made by plaintiffs.

IX. These defendants admit the allegations set forth in the ninth paragraph of said bill of complaint.

X. These defendants further say that in the contract entered into between plaintiffs and Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, his wife, under date of October 28, 1916, it appears that the said Klees and wife were paying therefor the total consideration of three thousand four hundred dollars; that at the time of the purchase by these defendants, they paid Klees and wife four thousand five hundred dollars for the property, which sum would be a reasonable consideration for eighty feet of land described in said bill.

Said Klees and wife thereby making a profit of one thousand one hundred dollars upon the sale thereof; that this sale was consummated under date of November 3, 1917, as shown by copy of assignment hereto attached and made a part hereof, the original of which will be produced and proved as this court may direct; that at the time this assignment was made, it was duly consented to by plaintiffs as shown by the assignment, that thereafter from the date of said assignment, and up to the present time, said plaintiffs received and are continuing to receive payments upon the contract, in accordance with its terms, that said plaintiff Frank L. Clark was fully advised as to the transaction between these defendants and Abner T. Klees, at the time it took place, and participated in the transaction and well knew the provisions of the contract assigned to these defendants.

These defendants not confessing nor admitting that any matter, cause or thing in the said bill contained, and not hereby sufficiently answered, is true to their knowledge or belief deny that said plaintiffs are entitled to any relief against them or either of them by reason of anything said bill contained, and prays to be hence dismissed with their costs in this behalf sustained.

Walter F. Johnson, Esther R. Johnson, By John J. Gafill,

Their attorney.

(c) Answer of Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson to Amendment to Bill of Complaint.-(Caption.) Now come the defendants, Walter E. Johnson, and Esther R. Johnson, defendants herein, in answer to the amendment to the said bill of complaint for further answer show unto the court as follows:

The said plaintiffs, Frank L. Clark and Hannah Clark, his wife, are not entitled to the relief prayed for in Section H of said amended bill of complaint, as said plaintiffs had knowledge prior to the sale to Gordon Rogerson, and Emily R. Rogerson that said sale was to be made, and said plaintiffs did not make known to said defendants their intention to question said sale or interfere with the same, but permitted the said defendants, Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, to make sale without objection, and are estopped from setting up any claim as against said defendants, Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, for reimbursement for the westerly 40 feet referred to in said Section H, being the 40 feet in question in this action. That said plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief because of their carelessness in making said contract and because said defendants, Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, are innocent purchasers of the eighty feet agreed to be conveyed by the terms of said contract, and had no knowledge or notice prior to the sale to them of said eighty feet. The said plaintiffs consented to the assignment to said Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson with full knowledge of the description set forth in said contract. And further answering said bill of complaint, these defendants say that said plainitffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for the reason that the contract specifies the manner and form of payments to be made, and said defendants would be subjected to great hardship and loss if required to pay in cash any sum whatever, and above the amount specified in said contract.