7. For answer to the allegations in the seventh paragraph of the said bill of complaint, this defendant denies that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in paragraph seven of his bill of complaint and asks that said bill of complaint be dismissed with costs to defendants. Subdivision II is in the nature of a cross-bill.

II. This defendant, Franks, claims affirmative relief under the rules and practices of this court, and says:

1. That shortly after he received a letter from plaintiff Bignell, hearing date March 16, 1907, said Bignell called on him in pursuance of the terms of said letter and that they then talked the matter over in reference to the sale of said property deeded to said plaintiff by said Franks and his wife, and that talk was put in writing by the plaintiff Bignell. and also in substance that the property deeded to said Bignell was divided Into lots and said Bignell and said Franks talked about the price that each lot should be sold for and that said Franks was to have what was commonly called the greenhouse property and 12 lots and Bignell was to have the lot the dwelling house was on, called dwelling house lots, and six other lots, and that would leave 18 lots and that those 18 lots were to be sold by Bignell and Franks was to have the net profits on such sales and the net profits so made were to apply on the contract that Bignell and Franks were to enter into in reference to said property; that Franks was to pay $2800.00 for the greenhouse property and that 12 lots, and Bignell was to have the house lots and six other lots for $2000.00; that afterwards the contract that is being foreclosed was made by Franks and Bignell under the terms of that contract, among other things, if Franks fixed up or improved the greenhouse to the value of $250.00 the $100.00 payment for the first year should be allowed him on the $2800.00 that he was to pay for the greenhouse property, and 12 lots allotted to him; that the 12 lots allotted to Franks have not been sold by Bignell, and whether Bignell has sold the six lots allotted to him defendant Franks knows not and cares not; that De Spelder street was to be opened up and conveyed to the city and Columbus street was to be conveyed to the city, and Wallace street was also to be conveyed to the city so that there would be access from those streets to the land; that the letter bearing date March 16, 1907, is in the words and figures following:

"Grand Haven, Mich., March 16, 1907. Mr. Franks, City.

Dear Sir:-I will stop Monday morning.

If I buy the whole thing, what would be the most you could afford to take the hothouses and 12 lots for, or would you be willing to rent for one or two years and about what can you afford to pay? Would you be willing to allow me 10 per cent. net on all money invested? You take the greenhouses and ten and one fourth lots at $300.00. I will take the house and six lots at $2000.00. You have all the net profit that is made to apply on contract. Resp.,

Jamies Bignell."

2. That Bignell put up $6,473.63 to complete the payment on the contract that Franks had with Mrs. Buswell or Mrs. Coburn in order to have Franks get the title to the property mentioned in the deed of Franks and wife to plaintiff Bignell; that after the deed was made and executed and the contract made and executed which is being foreclosed and some time about the last of December, 1900, the plaintiff

Bignell and defendant Franks talked the matter over in reference to their agreement made shortly after the 16th day of March, 1907, and Bignell then agreed to make a statement showing the condition of the lots and the amount of money he had in the property and that on or about April 10, 1910, he presented to defendant Franks the following statement:

and

3. That before that time defendant Franks had made the improvements on the greenhouse and was entitled to a reduction of $100.00 mentioned in the contract being foreclosed and that would leave the amount he had to pay on the contract $2,700.00, as stated in the itemized statement before mentioned; that the house lots were put down in said statement as of the value of $2,000.00, and a road was put down at the value of $400.00, which was the price Bignell got for that part of De Spelder street that was deeded to the City of Grand Haven; that all of the expenses, together with the principal sum advanced by Bignell, was put down on his statement, including the principal, the interest, survey, sidewalk, filling, abstract, Soule's services, money paid to Coburn, taxes, and even time of Bignell's amounting to $375.50, and commission of $1,000.00, and even a charge was made for insurance and water pipes on the house that Bignell took, and Bignell on that statement even gave credit for the rents he had received from his property and the lot that he had sold for $200.00, although he reported only $100.00 cash and he reported three lots at $500.00 and that made up his six lots that he was to have and did have; that said Franks was offered $100.00 by Bignell to call the deal square, but Franks would not accept it and claimed that Bignell owed him more than that and considerable more, and that Franks afterwards figured up the amount of the profits Bignell had made and estimated the same at $1,000.00, and that no part of this has ever been allowed Franks by Bignell on said contract, as Bignell agreed to do.

4. That plaintiff says in paragraph three of the bill of complaint: "That said Franks paid and satisfied plaintiff under said contract to and including October 10, 1909, and June 6, 1910, said amount then due thereon except $20.60 interest; that thereafter and until about April 25, 1911, there were claims made by said Franks concerning other deals previous to said contract between plaintiff and said Franks, all of which were settled by said contract, and such claims were fully settled and satisfied and abandoned by said Franks, and on said April 25, 1911, $325.00, part of the amount then due from said Franks, was paid on said contract by Mr. Farr, his attorney"; that defendant Franks says that that statement in said paragraph three of the bill of complaint is an acknowledgment of the contract that he now claims was made after said letter of March 16, 1917, was received by him from said Bignell and acknowledges that said defendant Franks was making a claim that said moneys should be credited on his contract which is being foreclosed by this bill of complaint, and that plaintiff knew when said bill of complaint was made and signed; that said Franks had always claimed that there was due him a large sum from the sale of said lots under said agreement with said Bignell, and in the last clause in paragraph six of said bill of complaint, plaintiff says: