8. Defendants admit that said Byers purchased said land with knowledge that plaintiff had at one time claimed to have a contract of it, but shows unto the court he was told, when he bought, the contract interest of said plaintiff had been forfeited and was at an end. Defendants show they had no purpose of cheating or defrauding ony one, and did not do so.

9. Defendants admit that the statutes provide for a tax as set forth In the ninth paragraph of said bill, but allege that the notice served by said Gleason was not for the purpose of enforcing said contract, but was to forfeit the same, and for that reason the payment of the tax was not a preliminary requisite. They also say the tax is payable before the contract could be assigned, and hence plaintiff has no standing in a court of equity under an assignment of the contract, and no right to enforce it without payment of the tax. If in this they err, they pray to be permitted to pay the tax.

10. Defendants deny all charges of fraud or intent to defraud as alleged in clause ten of said bill, and deny all its charges of conspiring together for any wrongful purpose.

11. And these defendants by way of a cross-bill, allege as follows, viz.: 1. That there has been no one in actual occupation of said farm since it was vacated by said Boomsma until defendant Byers bought it and went into possession. That plaintiff never has been in actual possession of the land. That during all the fall and winter of 1918 and winter and spring of 1919 plaintiff has suffered various and sundry persons to commit waste and damage to the said lands and appurtenances contrary to the terms of said contract; that people have been there and carried away numerous doors and hinges from the dwelling house, and committed other depredations, and taken the stanchions from the stable in the barn on said premises; that the barnyard fences are gone, and that there are practically no fences on the farm; that he has suffered the farm to grow up to weeds, and the buildings to be destroyed; that the roof of the house and barn leak very badly, so that the plastering has fallen off the house in some places; that the window lights are largely broken out in both the house and barn and things generally in a run-down condition when defendant Byers purchased and took possession.

2. That six months' interest came due on the contract February 1. 1919, and the taxes for 1918 became due in December, 1918, neither of which have been paid; that defendant, Louis P. Ohler, demanded the same several times without avail, and he finally put the same into the hands of C. H. Gleason, his attorney, who notified plaintiff and his attorney of the payments past due, and demanded that they pay them, without avail, and on April 12, 1919, said attorney served a notice on said plaintiff forfeiting the said contract; that attached hereto, marked Exhibit A is a copy of said notice served as aforesaid on plaintiff, April 12, 1919. That there was no one in possession of the farm at the time of the service of said notice, and defendant soon after took possession of said farm, and later sold it to defendant, Byers, in good faith, and had been in undisturbed possession for several weeks when this suit was begun.

3. That defendant Ohler sold said farm for all it was worth in its present condition, and got only about the amount out of it that was due him on the old contract for it. He did not sell the farm to make money, though he sold it for all it was worth in its present condition, but sold it because it was necessary some one go on it to preserve it, and to prevent the buildings from destruction and from being carried away; that defendant Ohler placed the matter in the hands of his attorney, C. H. Gleason, and Mr. Gleason informed him he saw said plaintiff and told him of the condition the farm was in and the need of repairs to the buildings and that the interest and taxes were unpaid, and said plaintiff replied he bought the place against his better judgment, that he traded other encumbered property for it, and that he had only about eleven hundred dollars on it, and would not have traded for it on his own judgment but because of a contract and guaranty he had from Hartley E. Hendrick and William E. DeGolia, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, that he should not lose anything on the purchase and the reason he had not paid the interest and taxes was because they refused to put up their two-thirds thereof, which he expected them to do, inasmuch as they were to share the profits and that he had his one-third of the money ready. He said he had no use for the farm and only bought it because of the guaranty aforesaid that he should make some money out of it, and he would like to get back a part at least of the money it had cost him, but that he would not himself live on the farm, or work it.

4. Defendants further aver that the notice, Exhibit A, legally terminated plaintiff's contract, and inasmuch as they got peaceable possession under it, they can bold possession thereof, and had a right to sell and buy the farm without consent of the plaintiff.

5. Defendants therefore pray:

(a) That said plaintiff may be decreed by this court to surrender and deliver up said contract for cancellation, and that the same be cancelled.

(b) That they may have such other and such further relief as the nature of the case may require.

(c) That plaintiff may be required to answer this cross-bill, but not under oath, his answer under oath being waived.

Louis P. Ohler, C. H. Gleason, Agnes A. Ohler,

Attorney for Defendants and Francis M. Byers,

Cross-Plaintiffs. Defendants.

(d) Answer of Plaintiff to the Cross-Bill of Defendants.-(Caption.) This plaintiff, saving and reserving to himself all right of exception to said cross-bill, for answer says:

1. Answering paragraph one of said cross-bill of complaint, plaintiff admits that he did not actually live upon the farm in question after It was vacated by the said Boomsma, but he denies that he has not been in actual possession of the land. He denies further that various and sundry persons have committed waste or damage to said land and buildings, but admits that the said buildings were not and for some time prior to plaintiff's purchase, had not been in good condition.