The English law clearly denies the right of rescission of an executed sale for breach of warranty.46 A diminishing number of the United States also deny it.47 But the majority of them allow it.48 And the adoption of the Uniform Sales Act in many perhaps universally established that such misrepresentations give a right of rescission, the recent tendency of the law is strongly in that direction. See infra, Sec. 1500.

46 Street v. Blay, 2 B. & Ad. 456; Gompertz v. Denton, 1 Cr. & M. 207; Dawson v. Coltis, 10 C. B. 523; Sale of Goods Act, Sec.Sec. 11 (1) (6), 53 (1), 62 (1). Before the decision of Street v. Blay, the English law was sometimes supposed to allow rescission; -Lord Eldon had so ruled in Curtis v. Hannay, 3 Esp. 82, and the law was so stated by Mansfield, C. J., in Caswell v. Coare, 1 Taunt. 566, 567. Also in Starkie, Evidence, p. 645. But this was criticised in Long, Sale, 215.

47 Thornton v. Wynn, 12 Wheat. 183, 6 L. Ed. 595; Lyon v. Bertram, 20 How. 149, 15 L. Ed. 847; Gay Oil Co. v. Roach, 93 Ark. 454, 125 S. W. 122, 27 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 914; Trumbull v. O'Hara, 71 Conn. 172, 41 Atl. 546; Worcester Mfg. Co. if. Waterbury Brass Co., 73 Conn. 554, 48 Atl. 422 (but the law of Connecticut since the passage of the Sales Act allows rescission); Woodruff v. Graddy, 91 Ga. 333, 17 S. E. 264, 44 Am. St. Rep. 33; Hutchinson Lumber Co. v. Dicker-son, 127 Ga. 328, 56 S. E. 491; Pound v. Williams, 119 Ga. 904, 47 S. E. 218; Ga. Code, Sec. 3556; Crabtree v. Kile, 21 111. 180; Owens v. Sturges, 67 111. 366; Sturges & Burn Mfg. Co. v. Smelting Co., 248 111. 285,93 N. E. 740; Tokheim Mfg. Co. v. Stoyles, 142 111. App. 198; Bender v. Lundberg, 152 111. App. 326 (in Illinois the Sales Act now allows rescission); Marsh v. Low, 55 Ind. 271; Hoover v;. Sidener, 98 Ind. 290; Wulschner v. Ward, 115 Ind. 219, 222,

17 N. E. 273; La Grange v. Coyle, 50 Ind. App. 140, 98 N. E. 75; Light-burn o. Cooper, 1 Dana, 273; H. W. Williams Transportation line v. Darius Cole Transportation Co., 129 Mich. 209,88 N. W. Rep. 473, 56 L. R. A. 939 (in Michigan the Sales Act now allows rescission); Merrick v. Wiltse, 37 Minn. 41, 33 N. W. 3; Lynch v. Curfman, 65 Minn. 170, 68 N. W. 5 (in Minnesota the Sales Act now allows rescission); Voorhees e. Earl, 2 Hill, 288, 38 Am. -Dec. 588; Cary v. Gruman, 4 Hill, 625, 40 Am. Dec. 299; Muller v. Eno, 14 N. Y. 597; Day o. Pool, 52 N. Y. 416,11 Am. Rep. 719; Fairbank Canning Co. p. Metsger, 118 N. Y. 260,269,23 N. E. 372, 16 Am. St. Rep. 753 (in New York the Sales Act now allows rescission) ; Kase v. John, 10 Watts, 107, 36 Am. Dec. 148; Freyman v. Knecht, 78 Pa. St. 141; Eshleman v. Lightner, 109 Pa. St. 46, 32 Atl. 63 (in Pennsylvania the Sales Act now allowB rescission); Kauffman Milling Co. v. Stuckey, 40 S. C. 110, 18 S. E. 218; Hull v. Caldwell, 3 S. Dak. 451, 54 N. W. 100; Allen v. Anderson, 3 Humph. 581, 39 Am. Dec. 197 (in Tennessee the Sales Act now allows rescission); Wright v. Davenport, 44 Tex. 164; Hoadley v. House, 32 Vt. 179, 76 Am. Dec. 167; Matteson v. Holt, 45 Vt. 336; Hulet v. Achey, 39 Wash. 91, 80 Pac. 1105; Mooers v. Gooderham, 14 Ont. 451.

48 Pacific Guano Co. v. Mullen, 66 Ala. 582; Thompson v. Harvey, 86 Ala. 519, 5 So. 825; Hodge v. Tufts, 115 Ala. 366, 22 So. 422; Jordan v. Austin, 161 Ala. 585, 50 So. 70; Mill-sapp v. Woolf, 1 Ala. App. 599, 56 So. 22. (cf. Hafer v. Cole, 176 Ala. 242,

American jurisdictions 49 seems certain to give increasing prevalence to this view. The decisions which allow rescission do not generally make the right dependent on the importance of the warranty or the character of the breach of it,50 nor does the Sales Act. The Federal courts apply either doctrine which is locally in force, rather than a single rule based on decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States,51 If several articles are bought for a separate price with a warranty applicable to each article, and the warranty as to one or more articles is broken, it is said that rescission may be had for such articles as do not comply with the warranty.52 But it would seem essential that a separate contract for each article exist. The mere fact that a separate price was made for each article will not be enough.53 A separate price is evidence, though not conclusive, of a separate contract.54

57 So. 757); Plant v. Condit, 22 Ark. 454,458; Rigfater v. Roller, 31 Ark. 170, 173; Berman v. Woods, 38 Ark. 351 (but see Mason v. Bohannan, 70 Ark. 435, 96 S. W. 181; Gay Oil Co. v. Roach, 03 Ark. 454, 125 S. W. 122), 27 L R. A. (N. S.) 014; Polhemus v. Hdman, 45 Gal. 573; Hoult v. Baldwin, 67 CaL 610, 8 Pac. 440; Harron v. Sale, 10 Gal. App. 628, 127 Pac. 355 (compare Gal. Civil Code, Sec.1786); Collins v. Tigner (Del. Sup.), 60 Atl. 978; Dietrich v. Badders, 27 Del. 400, 90 Atl. 47; Misell v. Watson, 57 Fla. Ill, 40 So. 140; Rogers v. Hanson, 35 Iowa, 283; Upton Mfg. Go. v. Huiske, 69 Iowa, 557,20 N. W. 621; Eagle Iron Works 9. Des Moines Ry. Go., 101 Iowa, 280, 70 N. W. 103; Timken Carriage Go. v. Smith, 123 Iowa, 554, 99 N. W. 183; Mattauch v. Riddell Auto. Go., 138 la. 22, 115 N. W. 500; Price Ac. Go. v. Sheenan, 150 la. 180, 129 N. W. 836; Billmeyer v. Queen Mfg. Go., 150 la. 318, 130 N. W. 115; Whaksn v. Gordon, 05 Fed. 305, 37 C. G. A. 70; Graver v. Hornburg, 26 Kans. 04; Weybrick v. Harris, 31 Kans. 92, 1 Pac. 271; Gale Mfg. Go. v. Stark, 45 Kans. 606, 26 Pac. 8, 23 Am. St. Rep. 730; La. Code, Art. 2520; flash v. American Glucose Go., 38 La. Ann. 4 (based on the Civil law); Cutler v. Gilbreth, 53 Me. 176; Milliken v. Stillings, 80 Me. 180, 36 Atl. 77; Tainter v. Wentworth, 107 Me. 430, 78 AtL 572; Taymon v. Mitchell, 1 Md. Ch 406; McCeney v. Duvall, 21 Md. 166; Horner v. Parkhurst, 71 Md. 110, 17 Atl. 1027; White Automobile Go. v. Dotsey, 110 Md. 251, 86 Atl. 617 compare Horn v. Buck, 48 Md. 358, 372; Columbian Iron Works v. Douglas, 84 Md. 44,64,34 Atl. 1118,33 L. R. A. 103, 57 Am. St. Rep. 362; Bradford v. Manly, 13 Mass. 130, 7 Am. Dec. 122; Perley v. Balch, 23 Pick. 283, 34 Am. Dec. 56; Dorr v. Fisher, 1 Gush. 271, 273; Bryant v. Lsburgh, 13 Gray, 607, 74 Am. Dec. 655; Smith v. Hale, 158 Mass. 178, 33 N. E. 403, 35 Am. St. Rep. 485; Gilmore r. Williams, 162 Mass. 351,352, 38 N. . 076; Branson v. Turner, 77 Mo. 480; Johnson v. Whitman Co., 20 Mo. App. 100; Kerr v. Emerson, 64 Mo. App. 150; St. Louis Brewing Assn. v. McEnroe, 80 Mo. App. 420; Edwards v. Noel, 88 Mo. App. 434; Sinnamon v. Moore, 161 Mo. App. 168, 142 S. W. 404; Griffin v. McDonald, 163 Mo. App. 84,145 S. W. 505; Smith v. Means, 170 Mo. App. 158, 155 S. W. 454; Excelsior Stove Mfg. Go. v. Million, 174 Mo. App. 718, 161 S. W. 208; Jenkins' Sons Music Go. v. Kindle (Mo. App.), 180 S. W. 557; Davis v. Hartlerode, 37 Neb. 864, 56 N. W. 731; Sherrill v. Goad, 02 Neb. 406, 138 N. W. 567; Hessig-EUis Drug Go. 9. Harley Drug Go., 05 Neb. 267, 145 N. W. 716; Sloan v. Wolf Go., 124 Fed. 106, 50 G. G. A. 612; Gerli v. Mistletoe Silk Mills, 80 N. J. L. 128, 76 Atl. 335; Dr. Shoop Family Medicine Go. v. Davenport, 163 N. G. 204, 70 S. E. 602; Robinson v. Huffstetler, 165 N. G. 450, 81 S. E. 753; Canham v. Piano Mfg. Go., 3 N. Dak. 220, 55 N. W. 583 (compare N. Dak. Civil Code, Sec. 3068); Byers v. Ghapin, 28 Ohio St. 300; Brachen v. Fidelity Trust Go., 42 Old. 118, 141 Pac. 6; Scott v. Vulcan

49 It has been enacted in Alaska, Arisona, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,

New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Iron Works, 31 Okl. 334, 122 Pac. 186, 192; Totten v. Stevenson, 29 S. Dak. 71, 135 N. W. 715; Oltm&nns v. Poland (Tex. Civ. App.), 142 S. W. 653; Hill v. Hanan (Tex. Civ. App.), 146 S. W. 648; Konnerup v. Allen, 56 Wash. 292, 105 Pac. 639; Blake-Rutherford Co. v. Holt Mfg. Co., 70 Wash. 192, 126 Pac. 418; Boothby v. .Scales, 27 Wis. .626; Crpninger v. Paige, 48 Wis.,229, 4 N. W. 106; Wilson v. Solberg, 145 Wis. 573,130 N. W. 472; Kelsey v. J. W. Ringrose Net Co., 152 Wis. 499, 140 N. W. 66; Warder v. Fisher, 48 Wis. 338, 4 N. W. 470; Minnesota Threshing Co, v. Wolfram, 96 Wis. 481, 71 N. W. 809; Parry Mfg. Cq. v. Tobin, 106 Wis. 286, 82 N. W. 154; Optenberg v. Skelton, 109 Wis. 241, 244, 85 N. W. 356. See also De Forest Radio Ac. Cq. v. Standard OilCo., 238 Fed. 346,151 C. C, A. 362; Walker, iJvans & Cogswell Co, v. Ayer, 80 S. C. 292, 61 S. E. 557; Southern Brass Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works,. 109 Tenn. 67, 70 S. W. 614; Mader v. Jones, 1 Ruse. & Chesley, 82.

50 In Gale Mfg. Co. v. Stark, 45 Kans. 606, 26 Pac. 8, 23 Am. St. Rep. 739, such a distinction was at least suggested, as the court confined its allowance of the remedy to cases "where the property purchased and received is substantially different from what it was warranted to be, and will not answer the purpose for which it was warranted/' In Louisiana, which derives its law of sales from the Roman Law, the breach of implied warranty

(or, in the language of the Civil law, the redhibitory defect) .must be such as to render the thing sold either useless or its use so imperfect or inconvenient that the buyer would not have purchased it had. he known of the defect. In case of an express warranty the requisites for rescission are even more severe. It is necessary that the quality warranted should have been the principal motive for making the purchase. La. Code, Art. 2520.

51 In Thornton v. Wynn, 12 Wheat. 183,. 6 L. Ed. 595, and Lyon v. Bertram, 20 How. 149, 15 L. Ed. 847, the Supreme Court of the United States held that rescission was not allowable, but in these cases the law was still unsettled in the jurisdictions where the cases'arose. The Circuit Court of Appeals in recent decisions has followed without comment the local law of Iowa, Nebraska, and Massachusetts, in each of which States rescission is allowed, rather than the rule suggested by the Supreme Court in the cases above referred to. Whalen v. Gordon, 95 Fed. 305, 37 C. C. A. 70; Sloan v. Wolf Co., 124 Fed. 196, 59 C. C. A. 612; Lawley & Son Corp. v. Park, 138 Fed. 31, 70 C. C. A., 399. See also De Forest Radio <fec. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 238 Fed. 346, 151 C. C. A. 362.

52 Young & Conant Mfg. Co. v. Wakefield, 121 Mass. 91. See also Womach v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 62 Wash. 661, 114 Pac. 509.