73 Woodward, Quaai-Contracts, Sec. 94.

74 Gosbell v. Archer, 2 Ad. & E. 500; Head v. Sanders, 189 Ala. 443, 66 So. 621; Littell v. Jones, 56 Ark. 139, 19 S. W. 497; Bergtold v. Worthy, 182 111. App. 379; Frey v. Stangl, 148 Ia. 522,125 N. W. 868; Braahear v. Raben-stein, 71 Kara. 455, 80 Pac. 950. Robertson v. Talley, 84 Kans. 817, 115 Pac. 640; Weber v. Weber, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 908, 76 S. W. 607; Jettison v. Jordan, 68 Me. 373; Cross v. Iler, 103 Md. 592, 64 Atl. 33; Cook v. Doggett, 2 Allen, 439; Do Mobs v. Robinson, 46 Mich. 62, 8 N. W. 712, 41 Am. Rep. 144; Presnell v. Lundin, 44 Min. 551, 47 N. W. 161; Larson v. O'Hara, 98 Minn. 71, 107 N. W. 821, 116 Am. St. 342, 8 Ann. Gas. 849; Interstate Hotel Co. v. Woodward, etc., Co., 103 Mo. App. 198, 77 S. W. 114; Whitaker v. Burrows, 71 Hun, 478, 24 N. Y. 9. 1011; Wilkie v. Womble, 90 N. C. 254; Ford v. Stroud, 150 N. C. 364, 04 S. E. 1; Durham v. Wick, 210 Pa. St. 128, 59 Atl. 824, 105 Am. St. Rep. 789, 2 Ann. Cas. 929; Miller v. Healey, 39 R. I. 339, 97 Atl. 796; Vaughn v. Vaughn, 100 Tenn. 282, 46 S. W. 677; Bedell v. Tracy, 65 Vt. 494, 26 Atl. 1031; Thomas v. Sowards, 25 Wis. 631; Miller v. Metz, 103 Wis. 220, 70 N. W. 213.

75 Booker v. Wolf, 196 111. 365, 63 N. E. 266; Montague v. Garnett, 3 Bush (Ky.), 297; Bethel v. Booth, 115 Ky. 145, 72 S. W. 803; Richards v. Allen, 17 Me. 296; Bassett v. Bassett, 65 Me. 127; Chapman v. Rich, 63 Me. 588; Dix v. Marcy, 116 Mass. 416; Peabody v. Fellows, 177 Mass. 290, 68 N. E. 1019; Cromwell v. Norton, 103 Mass. 291, 79 N. E. 433, 118 Am. St. Rep. 499; Todd v. Bettingen, 100 Minn. 493, 124 N. W. 443; Day v. New York, etc., R. Co., 51 N. Y. 583.

76Knowtman v. Bluett, L. R. 9 Exch. 307; Franklin v. Matos, etc., Min. Co., 158 Fed. 941,86 C. C. A. 145, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 381; Matt J. Ward Co. v. Goelet, 230 Fed. 079, 145 C. C. A. 173; Quirk v. Bank of Commerce, 244 Fed. 682, 157 C. C. A. 130; Patten v. Hicks, 43 Cal. 509; Fraier v. Howe, 106 111. 563; Wonaettler v. Lee, 40 Kan. 367, 19 Pac. 862; McDaniel v. Hutcher-son, 136 Ky. 412, 124 S. W. 384; Chapman v. Rich, 63 Me. 588; Williams v. Bemis, 108 Mass. 91,11 Am. Rep. 318; Whipple v. Parker, 29 Mich. 369; Smith v. Chase Ac. Piano Mfg. Co., 175 Mich. 371, 141 N. W. 563, 185 Mich. 313,161 N. W. 102S; Spinney v. Hill, 81 Minn. 316, 84 N. W. 116; Lally v. Crookston Lumber Co., 85 Minn. 257, 88 N. W. 846; Emery v. Smith, 46 N. H. 151; Gay v, Mooney, 67 N. J. L. 27, 687, 50 Atl. 596, 52 Atl. 1131; Lockwood v. Barnes, 3 Hill, 128, 38 Am. Dec. 620; Thacher v. New York Ac. R. Co., 153 N. Y. App. D. 186, 138 N. Y. S. 463; Graham v. Graham, 134 N. Y. App. Div. 777, 119 N. Y. S. 1013; Carter v. Brown, 3 S. Car. 298; Fabian v. Wasatch Orchard Co., 41 Utah, 404, 125 Pac 860, L. R. A. 1916 D. 892; Union Sav. & Trust Co. v. Krumm, 88 Wash. 20, 152 Pac. 681; Taylor v. Thieman, 132 Wis. 38, 111 N. W. 229; Savage v. Canning, 1 Ir. Rep. C. L. 434; Giles v. McEwan, 11 Manitoba L. R. 150.

77 Davidson v. Ernest, 7 Ala. 817; Patterson v. Stoddard, 47 Me. 355, 74 Am. Dec. 490; Dwight v. Cutler, 3 Mich. 566,64 Am. Dec. 106.

78Smith v. Pritchett, 98 Ala. 649, 13 So. 560; King v. Woodruff, 23 Conn. 56, 60 Am. Deo. 625; Donohue v. Chicago Bank Note Co., 37 111. App. 652; Talamo v. Spitimiller, 120 N. Y.

If the plaintiff has not only rendered performance, but has received part of the consideration for it, he should be allowed to recover the net benefit which the defendant has received.82

37, 23 N. E. 980, 8 L. R. A. 221, 17 Am. St. Rep. 607. The extent of the tenant's obligations are somewhat, il-logically limited by the terms of the lease. Woodward, Quasi-Contracts, S97.

79DeMontague v. Baoharach, 187 Mass. 128,131, 72 N. E. 938, the court Haying: "Nor could the action be maintained to recover what he had paid. For if the contract was oral, and within the statute of frauds, and it had been broken by the defendants, yet the statute had not been pleaded, and until this defence had been interposed the contract could be enforced, and an action would not lie to recover the consideration."

80In De Moss v. Robinson, 46 Mich. 62, 8 N. W. 712, 41 Am. Rep. 144, the plaintiffs intestate had paid the defendant 900 in consideration of his promise to leave real estate by will. The court held the money recoverable because the will which the defendant made "was not in accordance with the agreement, and even if it had been there was nothing to prevent his revoking the same or selling or encumbering the same during his lifetime." Cooley, J., dissented on the ground that the will made conformed to the agreement and the agreement had been partly performed.

81 See infra, Sec.Sec. 1473 et seq.

82In Day v. New York Central R. Co., 61 N. Y. 683, 590, 691, the court said: "If one pays money, or renders service, or delivers property upon an agreement condemned by the statute of frauds, he may recover the money paid in an action for money had and received, and he may recover the value of his services and of his property upon an implied assumpsit to pay, provided he can show that he has been ready and willing to perform the agreement, and the other party has repudiated or refused to perform it.

"But what shall be done when he has received part of the conaiderattonl He should not be left without any remedy for the balance honestly due htm, but upon the same principles of justice and equity the law should if the plaintiff has conveyed land and the defendant because of the statute refuses to pay the price, the plaintiff should certainly be allowed specific restoration if he is unable to enforce the contract.88