Upon the question whether a failure of title to realty which has been conveyed to the promisor is such a failure of consideration as to discharge a promise in consideration thereof, there is a divergence of judicial opinion. Some courts hold that such failure of title is not failure of consideration, and that the grantee must perform the contract on his part, his remedy being an action for damages upon the covenants of the deed,1 if the deed is one in which covenants have been inserted. Accordingly, in the absence of special circumstances such as fraud, insolvency or non-residence of the grantor,2 equity will not grant rescission.3 On the other hand, rescission may be allowed if the purchaser has been induced to enter into the transaction by the fraud of the vendor,4 or if the vendor is insolvent, so that the legal remedy of an action for damages will not in fact furnish adequate relief.5 Failure of title can not be interposed as a defense in an action for the purchase price.6 If the vendee has been placed in possession of the realty he can not rescind for failure of title and defeat recovery on the purchase money notes,7 unless there are special facts, such as fraud on the part of the vendor, or insolvency or non-residence. If the purchaser has paid the purchase price of the realty, he can not avoid the transaction and recover the amount thus paid in, because of failure of title.8 A breach of covenants of seisin,9 or of covenants against encumbrances,10 is not ground for rescission in equity. Therefore, if the vendor removes the defect in title,11 or if the liens which formed a cloud upon the title are barred by limitations,12 rescission can not be had. While rescission is ordinarily denied to the purchaser on the ground that his remedy at law upon his covenants is adequate, the same result follows where the purchaser has accepted a deed without covenants. In such case no relief can be given to the purchaser;13 and he can not avoid the transaction and recover the purchase price which he has paid.14 - The same result follows where he has required warranties but the covenants of warranty are ultra vires because the grantor is a county.15

10 Zimmerman v. Branyan, 62 N. J. L. 478, 41 Ail. 689; Duncan v. Gisborn, 17 Utah 209, 52 Pac. 1044.

11 Refeld v. Woodfolk, 63 U. S. (22 How.) 318, 16 L. ed. 370.

1 England. Duke of St. Albans v. Shore, 1 H. Bl. 270; Jacobs v. Revell [1900], 2 Ch. 858.

United States. Ankeny v. Clark, 148 U. S. 345, 37 L. ed. 475.

Alabama. McDennis v. Finch, 197 Ala. 76, 72 So. 352.

New Jersey. Rentier v. Ramsin, 01 N. J. L. 262, 102 Atl. 351.

Ohio. Hayes v. Skidmore, 27 O. S. 331.

Oklahoma. Groves v. Stouder, 58 Okla. 744, 161 Pac. 239.

Virginia. Bailey v. James, 52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 468, 62 Am. Dec. 659.

2 Towner v. Tickner, 112 111. 217; Steinbach v. Hill, 25 Mich. 78; Mc-Court v. Johns, 33 Or. 561, 53 Pac. 601; Heltzel v. Baird, 90 Or. 156, 175 Pac. 851.

1 Alabama. Fields v. Clayton, 117 Ala. 538, 67 Am. St. Rep. 189, 23 So. 530.

Connecticut. Barkhamstead v. Case, 5 Conn. 528, 13 Am. Dec. 92.

Florida. Long v. Allen, 2 Fla. 403, 50 Am. Dec. 281.

Georgia. Mathis v. Crowley, 146 Ga. 749, 92 S. E. 213.

Indiana. Laughery v. McLean, 14 Ind. 106.

Iowa. Harrison v. Palo Alto County, 104 la. 383, 73 N. W. 872.

Maine. Lloyd v. Jewell, 1 Me. 352, 10 Am. Dec. 73.

New Mexico. Reed v. Rogers, 19 N. M. 177, 141 Pac. 611.

New York. Ryerson v. Willis, 81 N. Y. 277.

Ohio. Taylor v. Browder, 1 O. S. 225 (obiter).

Tennessee. Land Co. v. Hill, 87 Tenn. 589, 5 L. R. A. 45, 11 S. W. 797.

Wisconsin. Reuter v. Lawe, 86 Wis. 106, 56 N. W. 472; Topping v. Parish, 96 Wis. 378, 71 N. W. 367.

2 Fields v. Clayton, 117 Ala. 538, 67 Am. St. Rep. 189, 23 So. 530; Abner v. York (Ky.), 41 S. W. 309; Egan v. Yeaman (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 S. W. 1012.

Even in case of innocent misrepresentation in some states. Abner v. York (Ky.), 41 S. W. 309.

3 Alabama. Murkett v. Munford, 70 Ala. 423; Meeks v. Garner, 93 Ala. 17, 8 So. 378; Parker v. Parker, 93 Ala. 80, 9 So. 426; Fields v. Clayton, 117 Ala. 538, 67 Am. St. Rep. 189, 23 So. 630.

Georgia. Mathis v. Crowley, 146 Ga. 749, 92 S. E. 213.

Kentucky. Abner v. York (Ky.), 41 6. W. 309.

Massachusetts. Earle v. De Witt, 88 Mass. (6 All.) 520.

New Mexico. Reed v. Rogers, 10 N. M. 177, 141 Pac. 611.

New York. Ryerson v. Willis, 81 N. Y. 277.

Ohio. Taylor v. Browder, 1 O. S. 225 (obiter).

Oregon. Fellows v. Evans, 33 Or 30, 53 Pac. 491.

Tennessee. Land Co. v. Hill, 87 Tenn. 589, 5 L. R. A. 45, 11 S. W. 797; Stokes v. Acklen (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 S. W. 316.

Wisconsin. Reuter v. Lawe, 86 Wis. 106, 56 N. W. 472; Topping v. Parish,

96 Wis. 378, 71 N. W. 367.

4 Perry v. Boyd, 126 Ala. 162, 85 Am. St. Rep. 17, 28 So. 711; Sherwood v. Salmon, 5 Day (Conn.) 439, 5 Am. Dec. 167; Mills v. Morris, 156 Wis. 38, 145 N. W. 369.

5 Matthews v. Crowder, 111 Tenn. 737, 69 S. W. 779.

6 United States. Patton v. Taylor, 48 U. S. (7 How.) 132, 12 L. ed. 637.

Illinois. Lafarge v. Mathews, 68 111. 328.

Indiana. Wimberg v. Schwegeman,

97 Ind. 528.

Minnesota. Slocum v. Bracy, 55 Minn. 249, 43 Am. St. Rep. 499, 56 N. W. 826.

Tennessee. Lehrd v. Abernathy, 57 Tenn. (10 Heisk.) 626.

Texas. Tarlton v. Daily, 55 Tex. 95.

7 Black v. Walker, 98 Ga. 31, 26 S. E. 477.

In some cases this view is based on the theory that the interest of one in possession is a sufficient consideration,16 and if the vendee wishes to do more than purchase the vendor's interest he should stipulate therefor. In some jurisdictions it is held that a failure of title is a failure of consideration which discharges the vendee from performance.17 If the grantor breaks his contract to furnish an abstract showing a complete title, the grantee may tender a reconveyance and defeat an action for the purchase money even if he is in undisturbed possession under a warranty deed.18 If the purchaser wishes relief on this theory, he can not retain the realty which he has received under the contract, since law has no means of divesting the purchaser of his title and restoring it to the vendor; and even if the title is of no effect as against third persons, it is a legal right as between the grantor and the grantee. For this reason, even in jurisdictions in which the purchaser can avoid the transaction because of failure of consideration, he should tender a reconveyance;19 and if he does not tender reconveyance he can not recover the purchase money in the action of assumpsit.20

8 Ilarrison v Palo Alio Co.t 104 la. 383, 73 N W. 872; Land Co. v. Hill, 87 Tenn 5S9, 11 S W 797.

9 McLennan v. Prentice, 85 Wis. 427, 55 N. W 764.

10 Anderson v. Land Co, 96 Va. 257, 31 S. 82.

11 Building, Light & Water Co. v. Fray. 96 Va. 559, 32 S. E. 58

12 Egan v. Teaman (Tenn. Cb. App.), 46 S W 1012.

13 United States. Union Pacific Ry v. Barnes, 64 Fed 80.

Arkansas. St. Francis Levee District v. Cottonwood Lumber Co., 86 Ark. 221,110 S. W. 805.

Michigan. Thorkildsen v. Carpenter, 120 Mich. 419, 79 N. W. 636.

North Carolina. Woodbury v. Evans, 122 N. Car. 779, 30 S. E. 2.

Wisconsin. Drott v. Stevens, 163 Wis. 571, 158 N. W. 329.

14 St. Francis Levee District v. Cottonwood Lumber Co., 86 Ark. 221, 110

S. W. 805; Thorkildsen v. Carpenter, 120 Mich 419, 79 N W. 636; Drott v. Stevens, 163 Wis 571, 158 N W. 329

15 Harrison v. Palo Alto County, 104 la. 383, 73 N. W. 872.

16 Carrier v. Eastis, 112 Ala. 474, 20 So. 595

17 Connecticut. Cook v. Mix, 11 Conn 432.

Illinois. Slack v. McLagan, 15 111 242.

Massachusetts. Rice v. Goddard, 31 Mass (14 Pick.) 293; Curtis v. Clark, 133 Mass. 509.

Minnesota. Durment v. Tuttle, 50 Minn. 426, 52 N. W. 909.

North Dakota. Dahl v. Stakke, 12 N. D. 325, 96 N. D. 353.

At an early period in English law, the fact that the lessee took nothing by the lease seems to have been sufficient defense to an action of debt on the lease. Prior v. Parson, Y. B. 2 Ed. II, pl. 82, 17 Selden Society 160.