Rescission will not be granted in equity for fraud unless the evidence of such fraud is clear.1 In some cases the court has required a higher degree of proof,2 and in some cases the burden upon the party who seeks relief is said to be as great as the burden upon the state in a criminal case.3 While this requirement seems too high, the courts are undoubtedly correct, in view of the interest of security in transactions, in requiring more than a mere preponderance of the evidence.

At the same time, no mere mechanical weighing of the number of witnesses on each side is demanded by this rule.4 The court is not bound to find in favor of the defendant in case of a conflict in their oral testimony, but all the circumstances of the case may be considered for the purpose of determining the relative probabilities of their respective stories,5 including the fact that the consideration is grossly inadequate.6

20Quebec Bank v. Weyand, 30 O. S. 126.

1 United States. Veazie v. Williams, 49 U. S. (8 How.) 134, 157, 12 L. ed. 1018; Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U. S. 323, 30 L. ed. 049; Colorado Coal Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307,317, 31 L. ed. 182; Union R. Co. v. Dull, 124 .U. S. 173, 183, 31 L. ed. 417; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 300, 31 L. ed. 747; United States v. Hancock, 133 U. S. 193, 197, 33 L. ed. 601.

Kentucky. Cole v. Young, 167 Ky. 600, 181 S. W. 177; Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. Crigger, 179 Ky. 749, 201 S. W. 298; Bentley v. Stewart, 180 Ky. 23, 201 S. W. 978.

Missouri. Bross v. Rogers, - Mo. - , 187' S. W. 38.

North Dakota. Jasper v. Hazen, 4 N. D. 1, 23 L. R. A. 58, 58 N. W. 454; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N. D. 28, 81 N. W. 36; Riley v. Riley, 9 N. D. 580, 84 N. W. 347; McGuin v. Lee, 10 N. D. 160, 86 N. W. 714; Little v. Braun, 11 N. D. 410, 92 N. W. 800; Wadge v. Kit-tleson, 12 N. D. 452, 97 N. W. 856;

Northwestern F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Lough, 13 N. D. 601, 102 N. W. 160; Carter v. Carter, 14 N. D. 66, 103 N. W. 425; Anderson v. Anderson, 17 N. D. 275, 115 N. W. 836; Miller v. Smith, 20 N. D. 96, 126 N. W. 499; Schinzer v. Wyman, 27 N. D. 489, 146 N. W. 898.

Washington. Faucett v. Northern Clay Co., 93 Wash. 239, 160 Ac. 643.

West Virginia. Wilson v. Maxon, 56 W. Va. 194, 49 S. E. 123.

2The evidence must he "clear, convincing and unambiguous." Colorado Coal Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307, 317, 31 L. ed. 182 [quoted in United States v. Hancock, 133 U. S. 193, 33 L. ed. 601].

It is said that "clear and satisfactory proof" is necessary. Faucett v. Northern Clay Co., 93 Wash. 239, 160 Ac. 643.

3 "The proof * * * must be so clear, convincing and complete as to exclude any reasonable doubt." Bross v. Rogers, - Mo. - , 187 S. W. 38.

4 Rembe v. Ferguson (la,), 166 N. W. 720.