The first issue involved the merits of the controversy, and the answer put an end to the plaintiffs’ cause of action. The third issue was not necessary, but we do not perceive how it could possibly prejudice plaintiffs. It was answered by the verdict on the first issue.

The defendant’s contention does not necessarily involve an allegation of fraud on the part of plaintiffs. If, as he contends, and the jury found, he was induced to sign the contract to sell by a reasonably well grounded belief caused by plaintiffs, without any intention on their part to mislead him, the Court will refuse specific performance and leave the plaintiffs to their action for damages, if they have sustained any. The jury found, at the first trial, that defendant’s refusal did not endamage the plaintiffs. We can add nothing of value to what we said in the first appeal.

It has always been held that, in an action for specific performance, parol evidence will be heard, not to contradict or vary the written contract, but to put the Court in possession of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the treaty and entering into the negotiation, to the end that it may ascertain whether there was any element of fraud, mistake or *442 unfair advantage taken by tbe party seeking the equitable aid of the Court. In the leading case upon this subject, Sir William Grant, M. R., after laying down the general rule excluding parol evidence, to vary, alter or contradict the terms of a written contract, says: “But when equity is called upon to exercise its peculiar jurisdiction by decreeing a specific performance, the party to be charged is let in to show that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to have the agreement specifically performed.” Woolam v. Hearne, 1 Ves., 211; L. C., Eq., Vol. II, part 1, 510. The evidence was competent for the purpose for which it was admitted. Defendant did not deny that he had signed the contract as it was written, nor did he allege that it had not been correctly read to him, but that he was induced to enter into it by the promise of' the plaintiff to transfer to him the option on the Sigmon farm. His Honor’s charge upon the first issue was correct. Without imputing any intentional wrong to any of the parties, equity will not give the plaintiffs an unfair advantage over the defendant by enforcing one part of the contract, and leaving the other unperformed. The judgment of his Honor was in accordance with the former decision of this Court. There is

No error.