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

Attorney for Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, (d) Answer of Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson.-(Caption.) Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson, defendants herein, answering the bill of complaint herein, respectfully show unto the court as follows:

I. These defendants having no knowledge of the allegations of paragraphs one, two, three and four of said bill of complaint, neither admit nor deny same, but leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

II. Answering paragraph five of said bill of complaint, these defendants admit that they made a contract with Walter F. Johnson, and Esther R. Johnson, his wife, for the purchase of the premises described in paragraph two of said bill of complaint, which contract is hereto attached and marked Exhibit A.

They admit that they claim to be the owners by contract of said entire parcel; that they seek to exercise the rights of ownership and possession over said entire parcel of land; that they claim to be entitled to the possession of the entire parcel of property. They admit that they refuse to surrender their rights in 40 feet of the said property These defendants deny all of the other allegations contained in paragraph five.

III. They deny the allegations of paragraph six.

IV. They admit that they have taken possession of all of said property and claim to be the owners thereof by contract; but they deny that their actions are wrongful or fraudulent.

V. They deny the allegations of paragraph eight of said bill of complaint.

VI. They admit that the value of the land in question is in excess of $100.00.

And these defendants, seeking affirmative relief, by way of cross-bill, respectfully show unto the court as follows:

1. That they are husband and wife and are residents of the Village of Birmingham said county and state.

2. That on to-wit, the 5th day of December, A. D. 1917, they executed a certain land contract in which they appear as vendees and said defendants Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson appear as vendors, whereby said vendors, for the consideration of $500 agreed to sell the premises described in paragraph two of the bill of complaint filed herein a copy of said contract being hereto attached and marked Exhibit A. That said defendant Walter F. Johnson informed your orators that he was purchasing the land from Frank L. Clark and wife. Your orators read over said contract before signing same, and also gave the proposition considerable thought before finally executing said contract. They would not have purchased said property if they had supposed they were purchasing only 40 feet thereof. That before the execution of said contract, said defendant, Walter F. Johnson, read said contract out loud to your orators. That there never was any question as between said defendant Clark and your orators that the property in question had a width of 80 feet.

3. That said plaintiff, Frank L. Clark, had knowledge that your orators believed they were purchasing the entire eighty feet of said premises, not later than February in the year 1918; but that he took no action until the filing of the bill of complaint in this action on the 21st day of August, A. D. 1918.

4. Your orators further state that they had absolutely no knowledge and no means of knowledge that plaintiffs in this cause claimed 40 feet of said premises until several months after the execution of said contract. That your orators acted in good faith, were bona fide purchasers for value, and took it for granted, from the wording of said contract, that they were purchasing 80 feet of said premises. And your orators further state that the mistake in the description of said premises, assuming that there ever was a mistake, was the fault of said plaintiffs, and that as between your orators and said plaintiffs, said plaintiffs sought in equity to bear the burden of their own mistake.

5. That the present proceedings will constitute a cloud upon the title of your orators, unless a decree be entered, affirming their rights to purchase the entire 80 feet of said premises in accordance with the terms of their contract.

Forasmuch as your orators are without relief save in a court of equity, they pray:

(a) That said plaintiffs, Frank L. Clark, and Hannah Clark, and said defendants, Walter F. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, may each of them, without oath, make full, true, direct and perfect answer to the allegations of this, your orators' cross-bill.

(b) That said plaintiffs and said defendants may be restrained and enjoined by this court from selling, assigning, transferring, encumbering, or exercising any rights of ownership over the premises hereinbefore described, contrary to the contract rights of your orators.

(c) That the contract between your orators and said defendants, Walter P. Johnson and Esther R. Johnson, may be decreed to be valid and to express the intention of the parties thereto; and that the contract between the said plaintiffs and Abner T. Klees and Mabel Klees, his wife, assigned to Walter F. Johnson, may be upheld and enforced in favor of your orators, according to the letters and terms thereof, as affecting the entire 80 feet frontage of said premises.

That your orators may have such other and further relief in the premises as may be agreeable to equity and good conscience.

Gordon Rogerson, Emily Rogerson, Carey, Armstrong & Weadock, Attorneys for Gordon Rogerson and Emily Rogerson.

(d) Amendments to Answer and Cross-Bill of Defendants Rogerson.-(Caption.) First: In paragraph II of said defendants' cross-bill, lines 7, 8 and 9, strike out the following sentence, "That said defendant, Walter F. Johnson, informed your orators that he was purchasing the land from Frank L. Clark and wife."

Second: In paragraph II, the second line from the bottom of page 2, strike out the word "Clark" and substitute the word "Johnson."