New Britain herald., 1926-11-24

they would be unable within the next month to take care of the in- terest requirements of the first and second mortgages and thereby through provision of the second mortgage. which provided that on default of an interest installment the entire balance would become due, it was the plan of the defend- ant to call the entire balance and then deprive the plaintiffs of the property.
 They claim that they used the en- tire sum to pay off the third mort- gage and part of the second and to pay off taxes and other claims due. Thus all the money went back into the property and no income for their own use was received.
 Later the plaintiffs allege that they paid taxes due, as we'll as the interest on the first mortgage. At the time there was also due a pay ment of interest on the second mort promise. they had not paid it. As a result, they say they received notice that because of default in payment he elected to declare the entire arr punt due. He is alleged to have notified them that If the entire amount was not paid at once he would institute foreclosure proceed ings and have receiver appointed.
 The plaintiff had no money and the defendant is alleged to have mo- tified them that if they attemp pted to sell the property they would have to pay off his mortgage in cash. thus frustrating any attempt at disposal.
 Later the defendant is alleged to have notified the plaintiffs that If they would transfer the property to him, he would allow them two months in which to acquire the pro- perty back again upon payment of interest and other charges. The plaintiffs relied upon this statement and transferred the property, they say.
 In so doing the plaintiffs say that they had parted with all the pro- perty and with a sum equivalent Of about s4S.65o. They claim that they took all steps solely upon the rep 'resentations, warranties. promises, agreements, threats and duress of the defendant and that in all their actions, they had been guided by and had relied upon the defendant, Cohn.
 They claim that the statements, representations guarantees and war ranties made by the defendant and his agent were false and untrue, and that if they had been allowed to proceed according to the original agreement. they would have had no trouble in handling the property. They further claim that the de- fendant has been in possession of the property since September and that he has collected about so,00O in rents, sum ample to pay the ln- terest charges. They claim that the defendant Is about to sell the frame houses included in the deal and that he will convey the prop erty unless restrained from so doing by the court. They say that they spent s3,000 in making repairs and renovations about the property. It is claimed that all the men, toned statements. representations, warranties. promises and threats were fraudulently made by the de- fendant and his agent with the in tention of making the plaintiffs act as they did.
 They ask temporary injunc- tion, prohibiting the defendant from disposing of the property; the appointment of receiver for the properties; a judgment that the transfer by the plaintiffs to the de- fendant be declared null and void and cancelled; an accounting i for the rents, profits and moneys collected from properties and from the plaintiffs. and s50.000 damages.