A conveyance in consideration of a contract to support the grantor is thought by many courts to differ materially from the ordinary contract for the conveyance of realty, which has already been discussed.1 The contract for support is one the specific performance of which is impossible. It is also impossible to measure the amount of damages in money so as to do justice to the party who is not in default, in case he survives his expectancy of life. In addition to these considerations, there is a greater opportunity for fraud or undue influence in contracts of this sort than in ordinary transactions; and the courts have recognized this fact, though they have not always expressed it. For these reasons it is held in many jurisdictions that if A conveys to B upon consideration that B will support A, and if B does not furnish such support, A may have rescission of such conveyance.2 Rescission has been given where the grantee failed to give such support,3 as by making the grantor a public charge,4 or where he refuses to furnish it,5 and conveys to others the realty conveyed to him in consideration of such promise,6 or where on the death of the grantee his heirs refuse to furnish it.7 Such a conveyance may be set aside for cruel treatment of grantor,8 or harsh treatment,9 but not for slight annoyances.10 The fact that the consideration expressed in the deed is one dollar and love and affection,11 or that the property conveyed was encumbered by a mortgage not mentioned in the deed but known to the grantee,12 does not prevent such right of rescission. Such contracts are often complicated by questions of mental infirmity of the grantor,13 insanity of grantor,14 or undue influence exerted by the grantee,15 which makes the right of rescission still clearer. Equity may on giving rescission make allowance for permanent improvements made by the grantee,16 making him account for timber cut and removed.17 Equity may give compensation instead of rescission,18 making such compensation a lien upon the premises conveyed;l9 and such lien must be superior to the interests of the remaindermen where grantor has conveyed to grantee for life, remainder to grantee's children.20 A conveyance by a husband to a trustee for his wife's support in consideration of separation may be canceled if cohabitation is resumed.21

15 Chapman v. Long, 66 Vt. 656, 30 Atl. 3. (The grantee refused to make a new and valid reconveyance.)

16 Barker v. Smith, 92 Mich. 336, 52 N. W. 723.

17Howerton v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 81 Kan. 553, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 34, 106 Pac. 47; Coffinberry v. Sun Oil Co., 68 O. S. 488, 67 N. E. 1069; Smith v. Root, 66 W. Va. 633, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 178, 66 S. E. 1005.

See also, Chandler v. French, 73 W. Va. 658, L. R. A. 1915B, 561, 81 S. E. 825.

1 See Sec. 2087.

2 Colorado. Martinez v. Martinez, 57 Colo. 202, 141 Pac. 469.

Illinois. Kusch v. Kusch, 143 111. 353, 32 N. E. 267; Dorsey v. Wolcott, 173 111. 530, 50 N. E. 1015; McClelland CONTRACTS - VOL. V-25 v. McClelland, 176 111. 83, 51 N. E. 559; O'Ferrall v. O'Ferrall, 276 111. 132, 114 N. E. 561.

Indiana. Sherrin v. Flinn, 155 Ind. 422, 58 N. E. 549.

Iowa. Walker v. Walker, 104 la. 505, 73 N. W. 1073.

Kentucky. Humbles v. Harris, 151 Ky. 685, 152 S. W. 707.

Michigan. Lockwood v. Lockwood, 124 Mich. 627, 83 N. W. 613.

Minnesota. Bruer v. Bruer, 109 Minn. 260, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 608, 123 N. W. 813.

New Mexico. Anderson v. Reed, 20 N. M. 202, L. R. A. 1916B, 862, 148 Pac. 502.

Oregon. Houston v. Greiner, 73 Or. 304, 144 Pac. 133.

Virginia. Tysor v. Adams, 116 Va. 239, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 81 S. E. 76.

West Virginia. Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730; White v. Bailey, 66 W. Va. 573, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232, 64 S. E. 1019.

Wisconsin. Bogie v. Bogie, 41 Wis. 209; Morgan v. Loomis, 78 Wis. 594, 48 N. W. 109; Reoch v. Reoch, 98 Wis. 201, 73 N. W. 989; Glocke v. Glocke, 113 Wis. 303, 57 L. R. A. 458, 89 N. W. 118; Young v. Young, 157 Wis. 424, 147 N. W. 361.

3 Colorado. Martinez v. Martinez, 67 Colo. 292, 141 Pac. 469.

Illinois. Kusch v. Kusch, 143 111. 353, 32 N. E. 267; O'Ferrall v. O'Ferrall, 276 111. 132, 114 N. E. 661.

Indiana. Sherrin v. Flinn, 155 Ind. 422, 58 N. E. 549.

Kentucky. Humbles v. Harris, 151 Ky. 685, 152 S. W. 797.

Michigan. Lockwood v. Lockwood, 124 Mich. 627, 83 N. W. 613.

Minnesota. Bruer v. Bruer, 109 Minn. 260, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 608, 123 N. E. 813.

New Mexico. Anderson v. Reed, 20 N. M. 202, L. R. A. 1916B, 862, 148 Pac. 502.

Virginia. Tysor v. Adams, 116 Va. 239, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 81 S. E. 76.

West Virginia. White v. Bailey, 66 W. Va. 573, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 232, 64 S. E. 1019.

Wisconsin. Reoch v. Reoch, 98 Wis. 201, 73 N. W. 989; Young v. Young, 157 Wis, 424, 147 N. W. 361.

4 Potter v. Woodruff, 92 Mich. 8, 52 N. W. 83.

5 Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730.

6 Wilfong v. Johnson, 41 W. Va. 283, 23 S. E. 730.

7 Cree v. Sherfy, 138 Ind. 354, 37 N. E. 787; Morgan v. Loomis, 78 Wis. 594.

8 Dodge v. Dodge, 92 Mich. 109, 52 N. W. 296.

9 Tysor v. Adams, 116 Va. 239, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 81 S. E. 76.

Where the grantor is the grantee's mother. Patterson v. Patterson, 81 la. 626, 47 N. W. 768.

lO Tuit v. Smith, 137 Pa. St. 36, 20 Atl. 579.

11 Walker v. Walker, 104 la, 505, 73 N. W. 1073.

12 McClelland v. McClelland, 176 111. 83, 51 N. E. 669.

13 Morgan v. Loomis, 78 Wis. 594, 48 N. W. 109.

14 Potter v. Woodruff. 92 Mich. 8, 52 N. W. 83.

15 Dorsey v. Wolcott, 173 III 639, 60 N. E. 1015.

In other jurisdictions it seems to be held that equity, will decree rescission only if special facts such as the insolvency of the grantee and his consequent inability to respond in damages are shown,22 or if the grantee was guilty of fraud.23 In cases of this sort equity is not always bound to grant rescission; and if security for the performance of the contract has been given, as by mortgage, equity may give relief by enforcing such security if such decree can be so framed as to do justice.24 Equity may refuse rescission but give compensation,25 and make it a lien upon the realty.26