As has already been seen,71 fraud may sometimes be of such a character as to preclude assent to a bargain by the defrauded person. If goods are obtained in this way no property passes to the fraudulent person, and the defrauded person's title may be asserted even against purchasers for value.72 But in the ordinary case of fraud, the defrauded person is induced, to give his assent to the bargain. If the bargain is a non-negotiable executory contract which has been induced by the fraud of one contractor the other may, in spite of any assignment, refuse to be bound by the transaction,73 since even a purchaser for value of a non-negotiable chose in action can stand in no better position than his assignor. If, however, title to a negotiable contract or to goods be secured by fraud, a purchaser from the fraudulent person acquires this title, and if he had no notice of the fraud and was not a volunteer, no equity exists against him. As commonly expressed, a purchaser for value of the voidable title of the fraudulent person acquires an indefeasible title.74 Not only may the contract be avoided as against puralso Bamett v. Speir, 93 Ga. 762, 21 S. E. 168.

71 Supra, Sec. 1488.

72 Ibid.; Sec. 1517.

73 Even though by statute the assignee of such a contract may sue in his own name, his rights are limited to those of his assignor. Chrysler v. Renois, 43 N. Y. 200. But if the assignee subsequently collects the claim in good faith, he cannot be deprived of the proceeds. Fidelity Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 203 U. S. 64, 51 L. Ed. 91, 27 S. Ct. 19.

74 White v. Garden, 10 C. B. 919; Leaek v. Scott, 2 Q. B. D. 376; Stevenson v. Newnham, 13 C. B. 285, 303; Lightman v. Boyd, 132 Ala. 618, 32 So. 714; Williamson v. Russell, 39 Conn. 406; Walp v. Mooar, 76 Conn. 615, 517, 57 Atl. 277; Mears v. Waples, 3 Houst. 581, 4 Houst. 62; Kern v. Thurber, 57 Ga. 172; Ohio & Mississippi R. R. v. Kerr, 49 111. 458; Titcomb v. Wood, 38 Me. 561; Hall v. Hinks, 21 Md. 406; National Bank of Bristol v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 99 Md. 661, 59 Atl. 134, 105 Am. St. Rep. 321; Goodwin v. Mass. Loan & Trust Co., 152 Mass. 189, 198, 25 N. E. 100; White v. Dodge, 187 Mass. 449, 450, 73 N. E. 549; chasers with notice,75 but also against persons whose right was gratuitously acquired.76 But unless it is unconscientious for the holder of the legal title to retain it, he will not be deprived of it. It is for this reason fraud of a third party " inducing the purchase of goods will not give the purchaser a right to rescind the contract - if the seller is not a party to the fraud, the contract must stand." 77