If A enters into a contract with B in reliance upon B's fraudulent statements as to the contents of such contract, it is not necessary that A should restore to B whatever A may have received under such contract as condition precedent to denying the existence of such contract, since no contract ever existed, and the principles which control in case of rescission of a voidable contract do not apply.1 One who has been induced to enter into a contract of compromise by fraudulent representations as to its contents is not bound to restore the consideration which he received thereunder as a condition precedent to bringing an action upon his original cause of action.2 If the party who has been induced to enter into a contract of compromise by the fraud of the adversary party as to its contents treats such contract of compromise as a nullity and recovers upon his original cause of action, the amount paid under such contract of compromise may be credited upon the amount recovered on the original cause of action.3

11 Griffin v. Roanoke Railroad & Lumber Co., 140 N. Car. 514, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 463, 53 S. E. 307.

12 Griffin v. Roanoke Railroad & Lumber Co., 140 N. Car. 514, 6 L. R.' A. (N.S.) 463, 53 S. E. 307.

13 Hale v. Hale, 62 W. Va. 609, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 221, 59 S. E. 1056.

14 Kentland Coal & Coke Co. v. Els-wick, 167 Ky. 593, 181 S. W. 181; Crodle v. Dodge, 99 Wash. 121, 168 Ac. 986; Hale v. Hale. 62 W. Va. 609, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 221, 59 S. E. 1056.

1 Arkansas. St. Louis. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42, 83 S. W. 332; Beardon v. Ry., 103 Ark. 341, 146 S. W. 861.

California. Meyer v. Haas, 126 Cal. 560, 58 Ac. 1042.

Colorado. Roberts v. Colorado Springs & I. Ry. Co., 45 Colo. 188, 101 Ac. 59.

Connecticut Simeoli v. Derby Rubber Co., 81 Conn. 423, 71 Atl. 546.

Illlinois. Indiana, etc., Ry. v. Fowler, 201 111. 152, 94 Am. St. Rep. 158, 66 N. E. 394; Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Buzis, 213 111. 341, 72 N. E. 1060.

Iowa. O'Brien v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry., 89 la. 644, 57 N. W. 425; Jaques v. Sioux City Traction Co., 124 la. 257, 99 N. W. 10G9.

Massachusetts. Drohan v. Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co., 162 Mass. 435, 38 N. E. 1116.

Michigan. Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 198 Mich. 501, 165 N. W. 698.

Mississippi. Jones v. Alabama & Vickeburg Railway Co., 72 Miss. 22, 16 So. 379; St. Louis & S. P. Ry. v. Ault, 101 Miss. 341, 58 So. 102.

North Carolina. Hayes v. Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., 143 N. Car. 125. 55 S. E. 437.

Wisconsin. Mensforth v. Chicago Brass Co., 142 Wis. 546, 126 N. W. 41. 512.

The courts are not, however, unanimous on this question; and in some jurisdictions fraud in the execution has apparently been confused with fraud in the inducement, and the contract has been treated as voidable rather than void. In such jurisdictions the right to deny the execution of a contract by reason of fraud as to its contents has also been regarded as analogous to the right to avoid a contract for insanity or intoxication. Accordingly, such courts have reached the conclusion that the party who has been misled as to the contents of the instrument can not deny the execution thereof unless as a condition precedent he restores what he received under such transaction,4 at least if such release was signed without making use of every available means of learning its contents.5 In Kentucky it has been said that it is absolutely settled in that jurisdiction that the party who wishes to avoid a compromise obtained by fraud as to its contents must restore what he received under such contract as a condition precedent to setting up such defense.6 This doctrine is limited in Kentucky to cases where the party who seeks to treat the contract of compromise as a nullity wrote his name after the contract of compromise had been written out.7 It does not apply to cases of forgery or alteration.8 If A pays to B money as a gift and takes B's receipt therefor, and subsequently A writes a release over such receipt, it is not necessary that B should restore such money to A as a condition precedent to' bringing an action for such injuries.9

2 Arkansas. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42, 83 S. W. 332; Beardon v. Ry., 103 Ark. 341, 146 S. W. 861.

California. Meyer v. Haas, 126 Gal. 560, 58 Ac. 1042.

Colorado. Roberts v. Colorado Springs & I. Ry. Co., 45 Colo. 188, 101 Ac. 59.

Connecticut. Simeoli v. Derby Rubber Co., 81 Conn. 423, 71 Atl. 546.

Illinois. Indiana, Decatur & Western Ry. Co. v. Fowler, 201 111. 152, 94 Am. St. Rep. 158, 66 N. E. 394; Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Buzis, 213 111. 341, 72 N. E. 1060.

Iowa. O'Brien v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 89 la. 644, 57 N. W. 425; Jaques v. Sioux City Traction Co., 124 la. 257, 99 N. W. 1069.

Massachusetts. Drohan v. Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry., 162 Mass. 435, 38 N. E. 1116; McNicholas v. Prudential Ins. Co., 191 Mass. 304, 77 N. E. 756. (Fraud as to contents of release.)

Michigan. Porth v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 198 Mich. 501, 165 N. W. 698.

Mississippi. Jones v. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co., 72 Miss. 22, 16 So. 379; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Ault, 101 Miss. 341, 58 So. 102.

Wisconsin. Mensforth v. Chicago Brass Co., 142 Wis. 546, 126 N. W. 41, 512.

3 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42, 83 S. W. 332; Beardon v. Ry.. 103 Ark. 341, 146 S. W. 801; O'Brien v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 89 la. 644, 57 N. W. 425; Jaques v. Sioux City Traction Co., 124 la. 257, 99 N. W. 1069; Jones v. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co., 72 Miss. 22, 16 So. 379; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. v. Ault, 101 Miss. 341, 58 So. 102.

4 Heck v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 147 Fed. 775; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Jordan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 So. 280 [citing Kelly v. Louisville & N.