In Rust v. Conrad, 47 Mich. 454, this court said: "When a party comes into equity it should be very plain that his claim is an equitable one. If the contract is unequal, if he has bought land at a price which is held inadequate, if he has obtained the assent of the other party to unreasonable provisions, if there are any other indications of overreaching or unfairness on his part the court will refuse to entertain his case and turn him over to the usual remedies. Specific performance is a matter of grace rather than a matter of right." If the defendant's actions and conduct and promises were such as to induce Birney to surrender a valuable arrangement which they had made or were making with the Citizens Committee, then he does not come into this court with clean hands. The language of Judge Gilbert in Marks v. Gates, 154 Fed. 482, would be applicable here: " 'He who seeks equity must do equity.' The doctrine thus applied means that the party asking the aid of the court must stand in conscientious relation toward his adversary; that the transaction from which his claim arises must be fair and just and that the relief itself must not be harsh and oppressive upon the defendant." 25 R. C. L., 224; Rudisill v. Whitener, 15 Ln. 81.

(e) Brief for Defendant.-The defendant in his brief takes up the matter of argument, dealing only with the record and does not cite any law which would be of help in this case.

(f) Holding of the Court.-The court held that the evidence sustained the defendant's contention that plaintiffs had sold their equity in the premises in question to the defendant and that the defendant had also purchased all of plaintiffs' vendor's interest in the property and a decree for the defendants upon the cross-bill was entered. The court also held that the several negotiations had between the parties culminated in a written agreement. The presumption is that it contains all that the parties agreed upon.

LYLE v. MUNSON, 213 Mich. 250-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

(b) Bill of Complaint.

(c) Answer of Defendant.

(d) Exhibit "A".

(e) Intervener's Bill of Complaint.

(f) Answer to Intervener's Bill of Complaint.

(g) Opinion of the Court, (h) Decree of the Court.

(i) Authorities Cited by Plaintiff-Brief for the Plaintiff.

(j) Authorities Cited by Defendant-Brief for the Defendant.

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.-This was an action brought for specific performance where the plaintiff relied both in his pleadings and proofs, upon a written agreement signed by the parties, and also upon a parol agreement of like tenor preceding it.

The case is of interest for the reason that the acts of part performance relied upon are unusually slight, the court grounding its decision, to a large extent, to the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

(b) Bill of Complaint.-State of Michigan, In the Circuit Court for the County of Saginaw, in Chancery. William Lyle, Plaintiff, v. William C. Munson, Defendant.

To the Circuit Court for the County of Saginaw, In Chancery:

I. William Lyle, as plaintiff herein, respectfully shows to this Honorable Court that he is a resident of the Township of Buena Vista, County of Saginaw, State of Michigan, and

II. That heretofore and some time during the month of February, 1919, that one William C. Munson, a widower, of the Township of Buena Vista, County of Saginaw and State of Michigan, did agree with him orally to let and lease to him for a period of two years with the privilege of purchasing for the sum of three thousand five hundred ($3,500) dollars, on or before the expiration of said lease, the following described property, situated and being in the Township of Buena Vista, County of Saginaw, State of Michigan, to-wit: Commencing at the south quarter (J) post of section seventeen (17), thence north ten (10) chains, west four (4) chains, south ten (10) chains and east four (4) chains to the beginning, also east of (1/2) of twenty-five and one-half (251) acres of land described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north and south quarter (1/4) line of section seventeen (17) nine (9) chains, seventy-one (71) links from the south boundary line of said section, thence running north on said quarter (J) line seventeen (17) chains, ninety (90) links, thence west parallel with the south boundary fourteen (14) chains, twenty-five (25) links to a point, thence south parallel with said quarter (1/4) line seventeen (17) chains, ninety (90) links to northwest corner of land formerly owned by Lazette E. Munson, thence east to the beginning.

III. That then and at sundry times thereafter said William C. Munson did promise plaintiff to reduce said agreement to writing and that he did repeatedly confirm said contract orally.

IV. That relying upon said oral agreement with said William C. Munson, your plaintiff did on or about March 10th, 1919, give up the home he was then occupying and remove therefrom and did enter into and take possession of the property shown above described and has been in continuous, open, notorious and undisputed possession thereof from and since March 10th, 1919, until the present time and is now in the possession thereof, and during this time has made various and sundry improvements to the house and to the property and has drawn upon the property a large quantity of lumber for the purpose of constructing a barn.

V. That said William C. Munson on the 7th day of April, 1919, did reduce said oral agreement to writing and did by written instrument, hearing date aforesaid, formally contract to convey to your plaintiff the above described land, a copy of which contract was annexed to the original bill of complaint in this cause and which said written instrument did in pursuance of said oral agreement previously made, contain the following language:

"Provided further that said party of the second part shall, on or before the expiration of this lease have the privilege of buying said above described property for the sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred ($3,500.00) Dollars."