The contract must be rescinded in toto; it cannot be rescinded in part and affirmed in part.83 As a rule, therefore, it is a condition precedent to the right to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud that the party seeking to rescind shall return, or offer to return, what he has received under the contract;84 and generally, if the subject-matter has been so dealt with, even before discovery of the fraud, that the parties cannot be reinstated in their former position, field, 46 N. Y. 533; Bell v. Keepers, 39 Kan. 105, 17 Pac. 785; Bach v. Tuch, 126 N. Y. 53, 26 N. E. 1019; Kennedy v. Bender (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 491. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §97; Cent. Dig. §§ 442-446.

80 Bach v. Tuch, supra; Conrow v. Little, 115 N. Y. 387, 22 N. E. 346, 5 L. R. A. 693; Goodall v. Stewart, 65 Miss. 157, 3 South. 257; Mansfield v. Wilson (Ark.) 13 S. W. 598; Bedier v. Reauine, 95 Mich. 518, 55 N. W. 366; Wheeler v. Dunn, 13 Colo. 428, 22 Pac. 827; Stevens v. Pierce, 151 Mass. 207, 23 N. E/1006. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 97; Cent. Dig. §§ 442-UG.

81 Lee v. Burnham, 82 Wis. 209, 52 N. W. 255; Equitable Co-op. Foundry Co. v. Hersee, 103 N. Y. 25, 9 N. E. 487; Hoyt Mfg. Co. v. Turner, 84 Ala. 523, 4 South. 658; Baker v. Maxwell, 99 Ala. 558, 14 South. 468. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 07; Cent. Dig. §§ 442-446.

82 Ante, p. 291; Gilchrist v. Manning, 54 Mich. 210, 19 N. W. 959; Mattock v. Reppy, 47 Ark. 148, 14 S. W. 546; Hinchman v. Weeks, 85 Mich. 535, 48 N. W. 790; Childs v. Merrill, 63 Vt. 463, 22 Atl. 626, 14 L. R. A. 264; Union Cent Life Ins. Co. v. Schidler, 130 Ind. 214, 29 N. E. 1071, 15 L. R. A. 89; Wabash Valley Protective Union v. James, 8 Ind. App. 449, 35 N. E. 919; Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 Iowa, 113, 40 N. W. 96, 1 L. R. A. 664, 14 Am. St. Rep. 206; Kennedy v. Bender (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S. W. 491. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 97; Cent. Dig. §§ 442-446.

83 Brill v. Rack (Ky.) 23 S. W. 511; Merrill v. Wilson, 66 Mich. 232, 33 N. W. 716; Barrie v. Earle, 143 Mass. 1, 8 N. E. 639, 58 Am. Rep. 126; Bell v. Keepers, 39 Kan. 105, 17 Pac. 785; ante, p. 212. And see the cases cited in the following notes. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 266; Cent. Dig. § 1186.

84 Brown v. Norman, 65 Miss. 369, 4 South. 293, 7 Am. St. Rep. 663; Esta-brook v. Swett, 116 Mass. 303; Cobb v. Hatfield, 46 N. Y. 533; Thompson v. Peck, 115 Ind. 512, 18 N. E. 16, 1 L. R. A. 201; Babcock v. Case, 61 Pa. 427, 100 Am. Dec. 654; Young v. Arntze, 86 Ala. 116, 5 South. 253; Doughten v. Association, 41 N. J. Eq. 556, 7 Atl. 479; CooMngham v. Dusa, 41 Kan. 229, 21 Pac. 95; Carlton v. Hulett, 49 Minn. 308, 51 N. W. 1053; Balue v. Taylor, 136 Ind. 368, 36 N. E. 269; Freeman v. Kieffer, 101 Cal. 254, 35 Pac. 767; Moore v. Association, 165 Mass. 517, 43 N. E. 298; Friend Bros. Clothing Co. v. Hulbert, 98 Wis. 1S3, 73 N. W. 784; Breyfogle v. Walsh, 80 Fed. 172, 25 a C. A. 357. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 266; Cent. Dig. § 1186.

the court will not allow a rescission, but will leave the matter to be adjusted by an action for damages by the party injured, or defense or counterclaim in an action by the other party.85

The defrauded party need not return what he has received, however, if it has been destroyed, or taken from his control, without fault on his part,86 or if it is absolutely worthless.87 Nor need he place the other party in the position which he before occupied, if, by reason of the latter's act, it is impossible to do so. All that can be required is that he return what he has himself received.88 Mere depreciation in value of the thing received before discovery of the fraud will not defeat rescission;89 and if in the meantime he has incurred expenses for repairs, he may, on rescission and return, recover the cost.90