notice to Bird to vacate the premises, and commenced legal proceedings to eject him therefrom.

The complainant filed his bill in this cause in the circuit court for the county of Lenawee, in chancery, alleging substantially the facts above stated; that under the said agreement he was to move upon and take charge. of the land, build a house upon it, and improve it just as if it was his own, occupy and keep it as his home, and take Pope to live with him, where Pope should make his home, and be cared for and supported by complainant; that he faithfully kept and performed the agreement upon his part; that Pope left his house without cause or reason; that the conveyances between Johnson and Pope were in fraud of his rights, which Johnson well knew at the time they were made; avers that, although the summary proceedings to eject him from the land have been discontinued, he is informed and believes, and so charges the fact to be, that such discontinuance was for the purpose of planting an ejectment suit, which the defendants, or one of them, intend to commence at once. He prays that they may be enjoined from so ... doing, and from conveying or incumbering the land, and that the conveyances between them, the deed and mortgage aforesaid, may be decreed fraudulent and void as against his rights in the premises. A temporary injunction is asked in accordance with the prayer, to be made perpetual on the final hearing.

The defendants answered admitting the execution and deposit of the will and contract. Pope admits that he intended at his death that Bird should have the land if he performed his contract, but denies that he ever gave him control or possession of the land, or ever intended or agreed to do so during his life-time. Bird violated his contract because he failed to move the old log-house upon the land, by which said house, worth

He claims that

$200, was lost to Pope; admits making a deed, when Pope was seriously ill and doubtful of recovery, conveying the land to Bird, and the delivery of the same by Pope to Johnson, under the following written instructions:

"MR. WILLIAM JOHNSON,

"Sir: You are hereby authorized by me to hold this deed, subject to my call at any time, the same as my last will. If not called for, then, after my death, deliver it to Charles K. Bird.

"Dated this 30th day of January, 1886.

his

"EZRA X POPE." mark.

It is averred in said answer that this deed was made so that, if Bird should satisfactorily care for and support Pope, the complainant might be saved the expense of probating the will.

Pope, in said answer, also denies that Bird properly supported him, and avers that he failed to provide him with proper care, nursing, and medicines when he was ill, and also an easy chair, which he needed, and was obliged to borrow from a neighbor; admits leaving the house of Bird, but avers it was because he was not well treated.

The answer further admits the making and delivery of the conveyances between the defendants, but denies any fraud against the complainant in so doing, and avers their right to execute them; admits that the summary proceedings were abandoned in order to commence ejectment. The answer also avers that in the latter part of February, 1887, upon being remonstrated with by Pope as to his omissions to perform his agreement, the said Bird told Pope he would leave the premises in the spring, and that would settle the matter; that, acting upon this agreement, Pope made his contract with Johnson, which is evidenced by the deed and mortgage of April 17, 1887. Proofs were taken in open court, under this issue, before the Honorable Victor H. Lane, circuit judge, who

found that, in the month following the making of the will and contract, Pope moved into the family of Bird, and there resided until March, 1887, during which time he was cared for and supported by Bird in substantial compliance with the contract; that Pope left without just cause, and that Johnson had full knowledge of the will and contract; and that complainant had partly performed the contract when Pope's deed was made to said Johnson. He decreed said deed and the mortgage from Johnson to Pope to be fraudulent and void, and against the just rights of complainant, and annulled the same. It was further ordered and decreed,

"That by virtue of the will, contract, and part performance thereof by complainant, he has secured rights in and to said lands which said defendant cannot revoke, cancel, or convey away."

Pope and Johnson were enjoined from deeding, conveying, or incumbering the premises in any manner, but the restraint of the decree went no further.

There is not a great deal of conflict in the evidence. The complainant's theory of the case is well supported, not only by the testimony, but by all the facts and circumstances in the case. The intention of Pope, and the agreement of the parties, that Bird should have the land at Pope's death, provided he was supported according to the agreement, are certain and undisputed. So is the fact that, relying upon the will and agreement, Bird put a house on the land, at more or less expense, and did some clearing. Pope insists that the agreement was that the possession and control of the land should remain in him until his death. This may be so, but still the proof shows that from October, 1885, to March, 1887, Bird managed it as if it were his own.

But this is not material. Bird was on the land with

the consent of Pope, and making improvements upon it, in reliance upon the agreement.

We think the evidence shows that he fully performed his part of the contract up to the very moment Pope left his house, and has been at all times ever since willing to live up to his agreement. Pope now complains of insufficient care when he was ill, but his deed, made just at the end of his sickness, shows that this complaint is an after-thought. All the complaint he now makes of his treatment, after such illness, is that Mrs. Bird left the outside door open while she swept, and sometimes raised the buttery window, which made him cold and chilly. He never said anything to Mrs. Bird about the buttery window, nor about the door, except some remarks when be shut it. It is evident from his own testimony that he had no real cause of complaint, and we are satisfied that he was treated with kindness, care, and consideration, and that even his whims were gratified, as far as the means and opportunities of Bird would permit, who was poor, and with no ready money. We see no reason, either in law or equity, why the decree of the court below should not stand, as it is also undisputed that Johnson is not a good-faith holder under his deed.

It is urged by the counsel for the defendants that the contract between the parties must stand on the will and contract, and that no oral evidence can be permitted showing any agreement outside of these two instruments. This is not so. This is not a case where the whole contract was reduced to writing, thus shutting out any oral talk between the parties. Here the agreement was orally made. In pursuance of the agreement, the will was executed, and also the contract. But these were not all of the arrangements between the parties, as both admit in their pleading and and in in their testimony. In such case the whole agreement may be put in evidence,

and the parties are not confined to the writings which form only a part of it. Richards v. Fuller, 37

Mich. 161; Phelps v. Whitaker, Id. 72; Trevidick

v. Mumford, 31 Id. 470; Sirrine v. Briggs, Id. 443; Rowe v. Wright, 12 Id. 291; Bowker v. Johnson, 17 Id. 42; Facey v. Otis, 11 Id. 217. The will and contract do not provide where Bird should maintain Pope, except that it should be in his own family; and both are silent as to what should be done with the land during Pope's life. The agreement as to the working and living upon the land, and the making of improvements thereon, and the possession of the same, rested in parol, and was competent to be received in evidence. Not only was it a part of the transaction, a portion of which was embodied in the making of the will and in the contract, but it did not tend in any way to contradict, vary, or alter these instruments or their meaning.

The court was right in holding, under this agreement as proven, that the conveyances between Johnson and Pope were in fraud of the just rights of the complainant ; and the decree might have gone further, in the interest of justice. The defendant Pope could not by revoking his will, and leaving the house of complainant, alter or disturb the effect of the agreement between them when Bird was not at fault, and was willing to perform his contract to the end. There was no fraud in the procuring of the contract or the execution of the will, and there is no claim of any. The will and the contract were dictated by Pope independently of Bird; and everything relating to the taking possession of the land, and the improvements made thereon, including the building of the house, was done with the assent at least of Pope. The only reasons assigned for attempting to destroy the force and effect of the will, which was made in part performance of the agreement between them, are found