The demurrers were alike in effect, and were substantially as follows:

(1) That the amended supplemental bill as it now stands is multifarious. (2) That the averments and prayers are incongruous one with the other. (3) That the court, in this case, can enter no decree that will apply with equal force to all the defendants. (4) That the amended or supplemental bill seeks a new relief not prayed for in the original bill, and states no new matter that has arisen since the original bill was filed.

With the record in this condition, the court, on the 26th day of May, 1913, filed a lengthy opinion reviewing the testimony in the case, and reaching the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to have the premises reconveyed to him, subject to the claim of defendant Kuczynski for certain repairs and improvements made upon the property. In the course of this opinion the court reviewed the history of the said Frank B. Kuczynski in a severe manner, finding that he had been guilty of fraud in his dealings with the complainant, among other things, saying:

"In the bill as originally filed the complainant asked that the defendant Frank Kuczynski be compelled to pay into the treasury of the corporation the cash which the articles of incorporation stated had been paid in. Subsequently he concluded this would bring him small relief, because of the worthless condition of the company's affairs, and has filed a supplemental or amended bill, and has prayed that the court restore to him his property on Rivard street, Detroit, Mich.

"Defendant asserts that four distinct issues arise out of the case: (1) Can the complainant maintain this case? (2) Is he entitled to file an amended or supplemental bill? (3) The amended or supplemental bill is objectionable for multifariousness. (4) The complainant, in failing to promptly rescind his contract, when he discovered what he terms fraud, does not come to a court of equity with clean hands.

"As to the proposition 1: The jurisdiction of a

chancery court in a matter of this nature is expressly conferred by section 9757, 3 Comp. Laws, and the cases cited which explain those sections.

"As to 2: The purpose of the complainants in the original bill does not differ from the purpose expressed and desired in the amended or supplemental bill. He desired to possess himself of the money taken from him, either in the shape of cash, property, or shares of stock made valuable by the cash behind them. The dispute between the complainant and the defendant Frank Kuczynski is fully presented by this proceeding, and there is and should be no good reason for denying such amendment or amendments as will permit and justify a full investigation into all of the facts surrounding this transaction and a prayer for such relief as the present situation makes practical.

In

"As to No. 3: As already pointed out, the purpose of the original and amended bill is the same. framing these, of necessity there comes an alternative .proposition. That is, if the court should find that the defendant Frank Kuczynski has so conducted the business of the corporation that a payment into its treasury of $1,500 or the sum stated in the articles would not result in granting any practical relief to the complainant, it then decree the return to him by the defendant of the property which the defendant is now possessed of.

"The defendant's purpose, as expressed by his former bookkeeper, would be accomplished in this case, and no relief of any practical character would come to complainant, and, in my judgment, the proper measure of justice will not be accomplished, unless the defendant Frank Kuczynski is deprived of some of his cunningly obtained property. This was a purpose of the original bill; it remains one of the amended instrument; and the objection of multifariousness is not well taken.

"As to 4: It is true that the complainant might have acted more promptly, but he was in the position of one who was hoping for the best, and his first attempts to accomplish something are the efforts rather of a misguided man than of one acting in bad faith. As the defendant has, in the estimation of the court, placed improvements on the property, which are worth not to exceed $500, this amount should be taken

into consideration, as should also the condition of the taxes and mortgage, complainant will have a decree with costs."

On November 8, 1913, the court made its final decree in the case, ordering that the conveyance from complainant to the said defendants be set aside and declared null and void, as against said complainant, his heirs and assigns; that complainant pay to the defendants $559.81, being the amount of improvements, taxes, and interest upon the mortgage laid out and expended by said defendants upon the said premises, for which amount said defendants were to have a lien upon the property; and that, upon the payment of the same by the complainant, defendants Frank B. Kuczynski and Josephine Kuczynski, his wife, do convey to the complainant the premises, describing them.

The case rested in this condition until the month of January, 1914, when new counsel for the defendants came into the case and moved the court to set aside the decree rendered for the following reasons, to wit:

(a) Because said decree was prematurely made. (b) Because no order was made or entered in the case disposing of the defendants' demurrer to the amended bill of complaint. (c) Because no issue under the amended bill of complaint had been framed for the hearing thereon. (d) Because no hearing was had on the new and antagonistic issue raised by the amended bill of complaint:

"This motion will be based upon the files, records, and proceedings of said cause in said court and upon the hearing of the case upon the original bill of complaint, answers thereto, and proofs taken in open court on the hearing thereon."

Thereupon, upon the hearing of said motion on February 13, 1914, the court made and entered the following order:

"The defendants' motion to set aside the decree heretofore rendered in this case as having been prematurely made and entered and for other reasons cited in said motion, having come on to be heard, and after hearing the arguments of the solicitors for the respective parties, and it appearing to the court from the files and records that the amended bill of complaint was filed on January 29, 1913, and the defendants' demurrer thereto was filed on February 3, 1913, after the testimony was closed and the cause submitted, and that no order was entered in said cause overruling said demurrer and granting the defendants leave to answer same according to the rules and practices of said court, and that said decree was prematurely entered, it is therefore ordered that the demurrer of said defendants to said amended bill, which the court has considered as a joint and several demurrer, be and is hereby overruled, and that said defendants respectively are granted leave on or before February 26, 1914, to file their several answers to said amended bill of complaint, adding thereto, if they desire, a demurrer clause therein, incorporating substantially the several grounds of demurrer incorporated in the demurrer heretofore mentioned, which is likewise overruled, and this court being satisfied as indicated in his opinion filed in said cause 'that the purpose of complainant in the original bill does not differ from the purpose expressed and desired in the amended or supplemental bill,' and that no other or further proof should be allowed to be taken or hearing had upon the amended bill, and that the requests of the defendants therefore be denied.

"It is further ordered that the decree heretofore entered in said cause on November 8, 1913, stand as and for the decree of this court as made and entered on February 28, 1914, in place of November 8, 1913, without further hearing, to all intents and purposes as if the same had been first entered on said February 28, 1914."

The defendants have appealed.

As we have already stated, the amended or supplemental bill in its averments, except in the particulars pointed out, was substantially the same as the original bill. It is urged by appellants that the court should

not have permitted the amendment to be made. We are of opinion that the action of the court in that regard was within its discretion. The matter of the amended bill did not seem to be any surprise to defendants' counsel, for we find one of them stating: "I anticipated that that was the relief that you would have to ask for eventually, if you asked for any." We think that, under the liberal rule of amendments in this State, the court did not abuse its discretion in that regard. Brown v. King, 172 Mich. 355 (137 N. W. 729); City Bank & Trust Co. v. Hurd, 179 Mich. 454 (146 N. W. 299). Many earlier cases might be cited.

We do not think that the bill of complaint, as amended, was multifarious. The fact that the prayer had been amended would not render it so. Often a bill may have a double aspect, and an alternative prayer. without being multifarious. Many of our cases might be cited upon this subject. Wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 45; Cornwell Manfg. Co. v. Swift, 89 Mich. 503, 519 (50 N. W. 1001); Cleland v. Casgrain, 92 Mich. 139-147 (52 N. W. 460); Densmore v. Savage, 110 Mich. 27 (67 N. W. 1103); Eberle v. Heaton, 124 Mich. 205 (82 N. W. 820).

We do not understand the claim that no decree could be made applying with equal force to all defendants. All of the defendants (except one who had a small interest, against whom the bill was taken as confessed) were before the court, represented by counsel. We agree with the trial court that the equities were with the complainant, and we see no legal objection to the decree which was entered upon the merits of the case.

As this court said in Bigelow v. Sheehan, 150 Mich. 507, at page 515 (114 N. W. 389), at page 392:

"When all the parties and the subject-matter of the suit are all before a court of equity, and the proofs