Sec 749

A party who buys a speculative interest in property cannot, if the speculation disappoints him, recover back what he paid.7 This has been held to be the rule with regard to speculative purchases of rights which turned out not to be valid;8 or, which failed to convey exclusive titles.1 And when a title when bought is known to be tainted, and sells at a low figure, there can be no recovery when the title turns out to be bad.2 And when a title as such is sold, the purchaser cannot, if nothing ultimately passes, recover the purchase money paid, but must fall back on the covenauts of the deed, if there be such covenants.3

A party buying a speculation and losing cannot recover back.

1 Roffey V. Shallcross, 4 Madd. 227; infra, sec 898 et seq.; supra, sec 190.

2 Supra, sec 520; Leake, 2d ed. 110; citing Hunt V. Silk, 5 East, 449; Blackburn V. Smith, 2 Ex. 783; Har-ner V. Groves, 15 C. B. 667;' Lyon V. Bertram, 20 How. U. S. 154; Bliss V. Negus, 8 Mass. 46; Nash V. Lull, 102 Mass. 60; Colville V. Besley, 2 Denio, 139. As to part performance, see supra, sec 580; infra, sec 899.

3 Supra, sec 520; infra, sec 899 et seq.; Benj. on Sales, sec 426; Giles V. Edwards, 7 T. R. 181; Whincup V. Hughes, L. R. 6 C. P. 78; Harnor V. Groves, 15 C. B. 667; Gault V. Brown, 48 N. H. 183; Jenness V. Wendell, 51 N. H. 63; Clark V. Baker, 5 Met. 452; Miner V. Bradley, 22 Pick. 457; Morse V. Brackett, 98 Mass. 205; S. C, 104 Mass. 494; Mansfield V. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Bruce V. Pearson, 3 Johns. 534; Smith V. Lewis, 40 Ind. 98; see.

Clark V. Gilbert, 26 N. Y. 279; Har-grave V. Conroy, 19 N. J. Eq. 281

4 Ibid.; Mansfield V. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Taylor V. Hare, 1 B. & P. N. R. 260; Lawes V. Purser, 6 E. & P. 930. As to divisibility, see sec 233, 330, 338, 511, 582, 899.

5 Supra, sec 191; Boone V. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 273; Davis V. Street, 1 C. & P. 18; Mavor V. Pyne, 3 Bing. 285; Oxendale V, Wetherell, 9 B. & C. 386; see supra, sec 511, 712 et seq.; infra, sec 898 et seq.

6 Supra, sec 716-7; Mondel V. Steel, 8 M. & W. 858; Parish V. Stone, 14 Pick. 210. That partial failure of consideration is a defence pro tanto, see Black V. Ridgway, 131 Mass. 80.

7 Supra, sec 516 et seq., 746.

8 See supra, sec 519 et seq.; Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 427; Taylor V. Hare, 1 B. & P. N. R. 260; Lamert V. Heath, 15 M. & W. 487.

Sec 750

Where there is no compulsion, and the party making the payment does not pay to relieve himself or his goods from custody extortionately imposed, a voluntary payment cannot be recovered back, even though it was made to avoid a suit, such suit not amounting to a criminal prosecution.4 "If a person with knowledge of all the facts determines to pay money claimed against him without litigation, he is as much bound as if the question had been decided in open court."5 And this holds even though the result is the payment of a claim which could not have been enforced from defect of technical proof; as where the claim paid could not have been sustained from noncompliance with the statute of frauds.6