
    CAMPBELL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. SAUNDERS.
    Appeal and Error — Where No Bribe Filed for Appellant in Chancery Case Decree Affirmed if Sustained by Record.
    On appeal from the decree in a suit in chancery for the foreclosure of a land contract and for an accounting, where appellants filed no brief, and an examination of the record shows that the decree entered is a proper one, it will be modified as required by a showing that, since its entry, certain sums of money have been paid on taxes and a mortgage, and affirmed.
    
    Appeal from Wayne; Collins (Joseph H.), J., presiding.
    Submitted January 15, 1925.
    (Docket No. 100.)
    Decided April 3, 1925.
    Bill by the Campbell Construction Company against Roy E. Saunders, Robert Henkel, and others for the foreclosure of a land contract, and for an accounting. From the decree rendered, defendants Saunders appeal. Modified and affirmed.
    
      Elroy O. Jones, for plaintiff.
    
      Wilkinson, Louther, Wilkinson & O’Connell, for defendant Henkel.
    
      
       Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. § 1607; 4 G. J. § 3157.
    
   Moore, J.

This is an injunction bill which asks for an accounting and for the foreclosure of a land contract, with a general prayer for relief. Upon the hearing in the court below the defendants Saunders did not appear. The other parties to the litigation agreed upon what the decree should contain and it was entered accordingly.

The appellants have filed no briefs in this court and if the case had been on the law side of the court it would have been affirmed on call. As it is on the chancery side of the court we have examined the record and find that the decree entered is a proper one.

It is made to appear that since said decree was signed Robert Henkel has had to pay out sums of money in the way of taxes and sums due on the mortgage mentioned in said decree, which sums should be added to the' sums mentioned in the decree. The plaintiff may have thirty days in which to pay the amount due to.Mr. Henkel.

Thus modified the decree is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Bird, Sharpe, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.  