That subsequent thereto and on or about the fourth day of August, A. D. 1916, this defendant caused to be served upon the said plaintiffs and upon the occupants of said lands a notice declaring a forfeiture of said land contract which said notice and proof of service thereon is in words and figures as set forth in the annexed Exhibit B.

Defendant denies that plaintiffs ever at any time advised this defendant that they had any private understanding as to any extension of time within which to make the payments as provided in said land contract and also denies that plaintiffs made improvements on said land which at the present time enhances the value of said land any more than the said lands were worth at the time of the purchase of same by plaintiffs under said land contract.

5. This defendant, in answer to paragraph V of this Bill of Complaint, while admitting that one Charles W. Hitchcock, called upon him at his bank in the Village of Prescott, Ogemaw County, Michigan, in respect to said land contract, that Mr. Hitchcock claimed to have in his possession a duplicate copy of said land contract and this defendant then and there stated the amount that plaintiffs had paid upon contract. This defendant further denies that said Mr. Hitchcock tendered to this defendant any money to be applied upon said land contract.

6. This defendant, in Answer to paragraph VI of said Bill of Complaint, denies that any person, in behalf of said plaintiffs, has at any time or place tendered to him the amount remaining unpaid upon said contract or any portion of the costs or expenses incident to the Declaration of Forfeiture of said land contract; that no person has conversed or communicated with the defendant in respect to this defendant giving a deed of the said premises or in any manner affecting the rights of said plaintiffs.

7. This defendant, in answer to paragraph VII of said Bill of Complaint, denies that plaintiffs have ever suggested to the said defendant that they are ready and willing to pay the balance remaining due and unpaid upon said land contract.

8. This defendnt denies the right of said plaintiffs to the relief as prayed in said Bill of Complaint, and prays to be dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

Affirmative Matter in the Nature of a Cross-Bill.-The said James McKay, defendant named in the Bill of Complaint filed herein, for further equitable relief, claims the benefit of a cross-bill and bases his right to same on the facts heretofore admitted as well as the additional facts herein set forth.

First: This defendant respectfully shows unto the court that in said land contract it is expressly provided, "that if the said party of the second part shall fail to perform this contract or any part of same, and shall remain in arrears for thrity days after notice to said second parties given by a letter addressed to said second parties at the addresses herein, that thereupon, the said first party shall have the right to declare this contract void and to retain all the moneys which may have been paid hereon and the improvements which may have been placed on said lands, as stipulated damages for the non-performance of this contract as a reasonable rental for said lands, and may consider and treat said parties of the second part as its tenant, holding over without permission, and may take immediate possession of said lands and remove said parties of the second part therefrom."

That upon default being made in the payment of said sum of two hundred dollars on April fourth, 1916, that this defendant caused to be sent to the said plaintiffs the letter as set forth in paragraph IV of said Bill of Complaint in words and figures as contained in said Exhibit A, and after waiting more than thirty days within which the said plaintiffs could have complied with the terms of the said land contract in the payment of the moneys then due upon said land contract, this defendant, on or about the fourth day of August, A. D. 1916, caused to be served upon the said plaintiffs the notice declaring a forfeiture of said contract as admitted by plaintiffs in paragraph IV in said Bill of Complaint in words and figures as contained in said Exhibit B.

Second: That said notice herein referred to as Exhibit B, also demanded of the said plaintiffs that they execute a release of all rights and claims theretofore possessed by them or either of them in said lands and premises, to this defendant, this defendant then and there offering to pay the expense of executing such releases, and that in default of the execution of such releases, this defendant gave notice that he would take such proceedings as he deemed advisable to remove the cloud to his title; that said notice also required of the said planitiffs to quit, surrender and deliver up possession to him of the lands described in said land contract; but said plaintiffs have hitherto refused to execute such releases of their interest in said lands under said land contract.

Third: That the said land contract in the possession and control of said plaintiffs and the rights claimed in said lands as in said Bill of Complaint particularly set forth, constitutes a cloud on the title of this defendant to the lands and premises, and has the effect to greatly depreciate the value thereof and to cloud the title heretofore possessed by the vendors in said land contract named and their assigns as set forth herein.

Fourth: Forasmuch, therefore, as this defendant is without remedy in the premises except in a court of equity, this defendant prays:

(a) That said plaintiffs herein may, if they can show why this defendant should not have the relief hereby prayed, without oath, all answer on oath being hereby waived, full, true, direct and perfect answer make to all and singular the matters herein stated and charged.

(b) And that the said land contract may be decreed to be null and void and to be a cloud upon the title of said defendant to the said lands and to be delivered up to be cancelled.