If the performance rendered consists of services, there cannot ordinarily, from the nature of legal remedies, be actual restitution, but it is possible to give the equivalent in value under a common count. Since money paid may be thus recovered and similarly in the United States, land, logic would require such a remedy; and it is allowed in part, but only in part.f If the plaintiff has fully performed, the only redress he has for breach of contract by the other side is damages for the breach. It is true that if the performance to which he is entitled in return is a liquidated sum of money, he may sue in indebitatus assumpsit and not on the special contract,20 but the measure of damages is what he ought to have received - not the value of what he has given.21 If, however, the plaintiff has only partly performed and has been excused from further performance by prevention or by the repudiation or abandonment of the contract by the defendant, he may recover, either in England or America, the value of the services rendered,22 though such a remedy is no more necessary than where he has fully performed, since in both cases alike the plaintiff has an effectual remedy in an action on the contract for damages. In some jurisdictions, if a price or rate of compensation is fixed by the contract, that is made the conclusive test of the value of the services rendered.23 More frequently, however, the plaintiff is allowed to recover the real value of the services though in excess of the contract price.24 The latter rule seems more in accordance with the theory on which the right of action must be based - that the contract is treated as rescinded ahd the plaintiff restored to his original position as nearly as possible.

Moir, 130 111. 582, 691, 22 N. E. 535; Comstock v. Price, 103 111. App. 19,21; Bell v. Offutt, 10 Bush, 632; Rylance v. James Walker Co., 129 Md. 475, 99 Atl. 597; Putnam v. Glidden, 159 Mass. 47, 49, 34 N. E. 81; Ozark Lumber Co. v. Chicago Lumber Co., 51 Mo. App. 555, 561; Van Brocklen v. Smeallie, 140 N. Y. 70, 75, 35 N. E. 415; Moore v. Potter, 155 N. Y. 481, 50 N. E. 271, 63 Am. St. Rep. 692; Aokerman v. Rubens, 167 N. Y. 405, 408, 60 N. E. 750, 53 L. R. A. 867,82 Am. St. Rep. 728; Levy v. Glassberg, 92 N. Y. 8. 50; Storm p. Rosenthal, 141 N. Y. S. 339, 156 N. Y. App. Div. 544; Shawhan v. Van Nest, 25 Ohio St. 490; Ballentine v. Robinson, 46 Pa. 177; Pratt v. 8. Freeman & Sons Mfg. Co., 115 Wis. 648, 654, 92 N. W. 368. See Williston, Sales, Sec.Sec. 543 et seq. The Indian Contract Act, Sec.107, provides that the lienholder, though title has passed, may resell, and though "the buyer must bear any loss," he "is not entitled to any profit which may occur on such resale," and this provision is reproduced in Sec. 60 of the Uniform Sales Act.

19 See Williston, Sales, Sec.511; Power v. Wells, Cowp. 818; Emanuel v. Dane, 3 Camp. 299; Gillard v. Brittan, 8 M. A W. 575; Neal v. Boggan, 97 Ala. 611,11 So. 809, and cases cited; Holland v. Cincinnati, etc., Co., 97 Ky. 454, 30 S. W. 972; Thompson v. Conover, 32 N. J. L. 466; Hornberger v. Feder, 61 N. Y. S. 865, 30 N. Y. Misc. 121. The Indian Contract Act, Sec. 121, expressly denies the right to rescind after delivery, in the absence of express stipulation.

In Dow v. Harkin, 67 N. H. 383, 29 Atl. 846, however, the plaintiff, who had assigned a patent and conveyed tools to the defendant in consideration of an executory agreement which the defendant had failed to perform, was allowed to recover the tools as well as have the assignment set aside by proceedings in equity. The court intimated that the jurisdiction of equity arose from the assignment of the patent, but that as it took jurisdiction of the case it would also act in regard to the tools.

20 Chitty, Pleading (7th ed.), v. 368; Atkinson v. Bell, 8 B. A C. 277, 283; Gandell v. Pontigny, 4 Camp. 375,8. c, 1 Stark. 198; Savage v. Canning, Ir. R. 1C. L. 434; Wardrop v. Dublin, etc., Co., Ir. R. 8 C. L. 295; Shepard v. Mills, 173 111. 223, 50 N. E. 709; Peterson v. Pusey, 237 111. 204, 86 N. . 692; Shilling 9. Templeton, 66 Ind. 585; Rogers 9. Brown, 103 Me. 478, 70 Atl. 206; Southern Bldg. Assoc, v. Price, 88 Md. 155, 41 Atl. 53, 42 L, R. A. 206; Nicol 9. Pitch, 115 Mich. 15,72 N. W. 988,69 Am. St. Rep. 542; Morin v. Robarge, 132 Mich. 337, 93 N. W. 886; Reifsch-neider v. Beck, 148 Mo. App. 725, 129

8. W. 232; Hosley v. Black, 28 N. Y. 438; Ludwig v. Pusey & Jones Co., 143 N. Y. App. D. 290, 128 N. Y. S. 72; Hollander v. Kaufmann, 172 N. Y. App. D. 218,158 N. Y. S. 195.

21 Dennett v. Jones, 2 Wall. 1, 17 L. Ed. 762; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Dodge, 3 Penn. (DeL) 63, 49 Atl. 248; Barnett

9. Sweringen, 77 Mo. App. 64, 71, and eases cited; Porter v. Dunn, 61 Hun, 310, 16 N. Y. S. 77 (S. C, 131 N. Y. 314, 30 N. . 122). And see cases in the preceding note.

22 Mayor v. Pyne, 3 Bing. 285; Planche v. Colburn, 8 Bing. 14; Clay v. Yates, 1 H. A N. 73; Bartholomew v. Marwick, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 711; M'Con-nell 9. Kilgallen, 2 L. R. Ir. 119; Chicago v. Tilley, 103 U. S. 146, 26 L.

Ed. 371; American-Hawaiian, etc., Co. v. Butler, 165 Cal. 497, 133 Pac. 280, Ann. Cas. 1916 C. 44; Hoyt v. Pom-eroy, 87 Conn. 41,86 Atl. 755; Ottoway v. Milroy, 144 la. 631, 123 N. W. 467; Jenson v. Lee, 67 Kans. 539, 73 Pac. 72; North v. Mallory, 94 Md. 305, 51 Atl. 89; Posner v. Seder, 184 Mass. 331, 68 N. E. 335; Wheelock v. Zevitas, 229 Mass. 167, 118 N. E. 279; Midland Operating Co. v. Miller, 197 Mich. 567, 164 N. W. 443; Moore v. Board, 215 Mo. 705, 115 S. W. 6; Franklin Motor Car Co. v. Kast, 171 Mo. App. 309,157 S. W. 841; Cook v. Gallatin R. Co., 28 Mont. 509, 73 Pac. 131; Thompson v. Gaflfey, 52 Neb. 317, 72 N. W. 314; Stephen v. Camden, etc., Soap Co., 75 N. J. L. 648, 68 Atl. 69; Person v. Stoll, 72 N. Y. App. D. 141, 76 N. Y. S. 324, 174 N. Y. 548, 67 N. E. 1089; Atlantic, etc., Co. v. Woodmere Realty Co., 156 N. Y. App. D. 351, 142 N. Y. S. 953; Borup v. VonKokeritz, 162 N. Y. App. D. 394, 147 N. Y. S. 832; McCurry v. Purgason, 170 N. C. 463, 87 S. E. 244, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 907; Easton v. Quackenbush, 86 Or. 374,168 Pac. 631; Franconi v. Graham (Or.), 174 Pac. 548; Boville v. Dalton Paper Mills, 86 Vt. 305, 85 Atl. 623. But the right was denied as recently as 1802 in Hulle v. Heightman, 2 East, 145. See also cases collected, infra, Sec.Sec. 1475, 1477.