If a party to a contract has paid money and the other party has wholly failed to perform on his part, restitution may be had both in England6 and in the United States; and as will be seen from the cases cited below and from the following sections, in the United States at least, the failure need not be total if it is substantial and the status quo can be restored;7 but an unsubimposes as a remedy against a wrongdoer an obligation similar to that of a trustee) with an express oral trust, which though repudiated cannot be enforced. Brock v. Brock, 90 Ala. 86, 8 So. 11, 9 L. R. A. 287.

In Eronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586, 101N. E. 935,45 L. ft. A. (N. S.) 1182, the court said: "It is said by the defendant in error that the deed, being an executed conveyance of real estate, cannot be annulled or set aside by evidence that there has been a failure of consideration, and Redmond v. Cass, 226 111. 120, 80 N. E. 708; Poe v. Ulrey, 233 111. 56, 84 N. E. 46, and other cases are relied on in support of this proposition. We recognize the full force of the well-established rule that a failure of consideration for an executed conveyance of real estate gives the grantor no right, at law, to avoid his conveyance. Page on Contracts, Sec. 1479, and cases there cited. But this is an equitable proceeding, in which specific justice between the parties before the court is of greater importance than the mere mechanical enforcement of a general rule of law. Courts of equity, in order to relieve against a great hardship where one has been induced to convey real estate for little or no consideration, will seise upon circumstances of oppression, fraud, or duress for the purpose of admiiustering justice in the case in hand. Kusch v. Kusch, 143 11I. 353, 32 N. E. 267; Dorsey v. Wolcott, 173 11I. 539, 50 N. E. 1015, and McClelland v. McClelland, 176 HI. 83, 51 N. E. 559, are illustrations of different aspects of the rule above stated."

•Towers v. Barrett, 1 T. R. 133; Giles v. Edwards, 7 T. R. 181; Fairer ». Nightingal, 2 Esp. 639; Widdle v. Lyman, Peake, A. C, 30; Greville v. Da Costa, Peake, A. C. 113; Squire v. Tod, 1 Camp. 293; Wilde v. Fort, 4 Taunt. 334; Bartlett v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 259; Gosbell v. Archer, 4 N. & M. 485. So in the colonies: Wrayton v. Naylor, 24 S. C. Canada, 295; Wolff v. Pickering, 12 S. C. Cape of Good Hope, 429, 432.

7 Nash v. Towne, 5 Wall. 689, 18 L. Ed. 527; Glock v. Howard, etc., Colony Co., 123 Gal. 1, 55 Pac. 713,43 L. R. A. 199, 69 Am. St. Rep. 17; Grotheer v. Panama-Pacific Land Co., (Cal. App. 1919), 181 Pac. 667; Lyon v. Anna-ble, 4 Conn. 350; Thresher v Stoning-ton Bank, 68 Conn. 201, 36 Atl. 38; Janulewyes v. Quagliano, 88 Conn. 60, 89 Atl. 897; Barr v. Logan, 5 Harr. (Del.) 52; Payne v. Pomeroy, 21 D. C. 243; Trinkle v. Reeves, 25 IU. 214, 76 Am. Dec. 793; Mound City Distilling Co. v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 152 HI. App. 155; German, etc., Assoc. v. Droge, 14 Ind. App. 691, 43 N. E. 475; Wilhelm v. Fimple, 31 Iowa, 131, 7 Am. Rep. 117; Doherty v. Dolan, 65 Me. 87, 20 Am. Rep. 677; Pancoast v. Dinsmore, 105 Me. 471, 75 Atl. 43, 134 Am. St. Rep. 582; Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307; Putnam v. Bolster, 216 Mass. 367, 103 N. E. 942; Lodi v. Goyette, 219 Mass. 72, 106 N. E. 601; Martin v. Cunningham, 231 Mass. 280, 121 N. E. 21; Vallentyne v. Immigration Land Co., 95 Minn. 195,103 N. W.

1028; Dakota, etc., Co. v. Price, 22 Neb. 96, 34 N. W. 97; Weaver v. Bentley, 1 Caines, 47; Gockcroft v. Muller, 71 N. Y. 367; Bigler v. Morgan, 77 N. Y. 312; Brokaw v. Duffy, 165 N. Y. 391, 59 N. E. 196; Glenn v. Roesler, 88 Hun, 74, 34 N. Y. S. 608; Altschul v. Koven, 94 N. Y. S. 558; Torrey v. McFadyen, 165 N. C. 237, 81 S. E. 296; Woodard v. Willamette Valley, etc., Land Co., 89 Oreg. 10, 173 Pac. 262; Massey v. Becker, 90 Oreg. 461, 176 Pac. 425; Wilkinson v. Ferree, 24 Pa. 190; Ohio Valley Trust Co. v. Allison, 243 Pa. 201, 89 Atl. 1132; Rugg v. Midland Realty Co., 261 Pa. 453, 104 Atl. 685; Ray-wood, etc., Co. o. Sharp (Tex. Civ. App.), 175 S. W. 499; Newberry v. Ruffin, 102 Va. 73, 45 S. E. 733; Mc~ Kinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 43 N. W. 800,6 L. R. A. 121,17 Am. St. Rep. 178; Francis v. Brown, 22 Wyo. 528, 145 Pac. 750; King v. British Am. Co., 7 Can. Exch. 119.

8 Gray v. Central Minn. Immigration Co., 127 Iowa, 560, 103 N. W. 792; De

Kay v. Bliss, 120 N. Y. 91,24 N. E. 300, and see cases in the preceding note.

9 Bray v. Lowery, 163 Cal. 256, 124 Pac. 1004. See also Perlee v. Jeffcott,

89 N. J. L. 34, 97 Atl. 789.

10 See supra, Sec.852.

11 See supra, Sec.Sec. 927 et seq.

12 See supra, Sec. 834. Therefore, even though a purchaser bringing an action against the vendor for damages because he did not have title, might have rescinded the contract on that account, yet, not having amended his complaint to demand a rescission till after the vendor had acquired title and offered to convey on payment of the amount due, he was held not entitled to rescission. Morris v, Columbia Canal Co., 75 Wash. 483, 135 Pac. 238.

13 Sutherland v. Green, 49 Mont. 379, 142 Pac. 636; Harrington v. Iaw (R. I.),

90 Atl. 660.

14 Illinois Central R. Co. v. Keebler, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 305, 84 S. W. 1167; Vasquez v. Pettit, 74 Oreg. 496, Ann. Cas. 1917 A. 439, 145 Pac. 1066;