The doctrine has been invoked most frequently in the recovery of money paid.2 It

1 See Professor Williston, "Dependency of Mutual Promises in the Civil Law," 13 Harv. Law Rev. 84, 94, 95; Wald's Pollock, "Contracts" (Williston's ed.), pp. 346, 347.

2 Money paid for land. Squire v. Todd, 1808, 1 Camp. 293 ; Bart-lett v. Turchin, 1815, 6 Taunt. 259; Gosbell v. Archer, 1835, 4 Nev. & Man. 485; Flinn v. Barber, 1879, 64 Ala. 193; Worley v. Nethercott, 1891, 91 Cal. 512; 27 Pac. 767; 25 Am. St. Rep. 209; Richter v. Union Land Co., 1900, 129 Cal. 367; 62 Pac. 39, (money paid for water rights); Carter v. Fox, 1909, 11 Cal. App. 67; 103 Pac. 910; Wrayton v. Naylor, 1894, 24 Can. S. C. 295; Thresher v. Stonington Bank, 1896, 68 Conn. 201; 36 Alt. 38; Payne v. Pomeroy, 1892, 21 D. C. 243; Hurd v. Denny, 1855, 16 111. 492; Trinkle v. Reeves, 1861, 25 111. 214; 76 Am. Dec. 793; Smith v. Treat, 1908, 234 111. 552; 85 N. E. 289; Dantzeiser v. Cook, 1872, 40 Ind. 65; Wilhelm v. Fimple, 1870, 31 la. 131; 7 Am. Rep. 117; Kimball v. Bell, 1892, 47 Kan. 757; 28 Pac. 1015; Doherty v. Dolan, 1876, 65 Me. 87 ; 20 Am. Rep. 677; Ballou v. Billings, 1884, 136 Mass. 307; Weaver v. Aitcheson, 1887, 65 Mich. 285; 32 N. W. 436; Morrison v. Ives, 1845, 4 Smed. & M. (12 Miss.) 652; Langford v. Caldwell, 1871, 48 Mo. 508; Dakota, etc., Co. v. Price, 1887, 22 Neb. 96; 34 N. W. 97; Reddington v. Henry, 1869, 48 N. H. 273; Weaver v. Bently, 1803, 1 Caines (N. Y.) 47; Freer v. Denton, 1875, 61 N. Y. 492; Lewis v. Brinkley, 1858, 50 N. C. 295; Kicks v. State Bank, 1904, 12 N. D. 576; 98 N. W. 408 ; Stickter v. Guldin, 1858, 30 Pa. St. 114; Wood v. Mason, 1865, 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.) 251; House v. Kendall, 1881, 55 Tex. 40; Newberry v. Ruffin, 1903, 102 Va. 73; 45 S. E. 733; Riverside Residence Co. v. Husted, 1909, 109 Va. 688; 64 S. E. 958; Tallensen v. Gunderson, 1853, 1 Wis. 113.

Money paid for goods. Towers v. Barrett, 1786, 1 Term R. 133; Giles v. Edwards, 1797, 7 T. R. 181; Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf, [1896] 2 Ch. 93; Nash v. Towne, 1866, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 689; Campbell Co. v. Marsh, 1894, 20 Col. 22; 36 Pac. 799; Barr v. Logan, 1848, has also been applied, however, to cases of goods sold1 or services rendered;2 but with this important limitation - that

5 Harr. (Del.) 52; Winn v. Morris, 1894, 94 Ga. 452; 20 S. E. 339; Miner p. Bradley, 1839, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 457; Phares p. Jaynes, 1906, 118 Mo. App. 546; 94 S. W. 585; Danforth p. Dewey, 1824, 3 N. H. 79; Meader p. Cornell, 58 N. L. J. 375; 33 Atl. 960; Raymond p. Bearnard, 1815, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 274; 7 Am. Dec. 317 ; Bier p. Bash, 1905, 107 App. Div. 429; 95 N. Y. Supp. 281, {off. 1906, 186 N. Y. 565; 79 N. E. 1101); Smethurst v. Woolston, 1842, 5 Watts & Serg. (Pa.) 106. And see cases of rescission for breach of warranty, Williston, "Sales," Sec. 608.

Money paid for insurance. Black v. Supr. Council, Amer. Legion of Honor, 1903, 120 Fed. 580, (C. C. Ind.), aff. 123 Fed. 650; 59 C. C. A. 414; Van Werden v. Equitable Life Assur. Co., 1896, 99 la. 621 ; 68 N. W. 892; McKee v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1859, 28 Mo. 383; 75 Am. Dec. 129; American Life Ins. Co. p. McAden, 1885, 109 Pa. St. 399; 1 Atl. 256. Contra: Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Baker, 1877, 25 111. 410; Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Hauser, 1887, 111 Ind. 266; 12 N. E. 479. See post, Sec. 265.

1 Bartholomew v. Markwick, 1864, 15 C. B. N. S. 711; Ankeny v. Clark, 1893, 148 U. S. 345; 13 S. Ct. 617; United States p. Molloy, 1904, 127 Fed. 953; 62 C. C. A. 585; Johnson Forge Co. p. Leonard,

1902, 3 Penn. (Del.) 342; 51 Atl. 305; 57 L. R. A. 225; 94 Am. St. Rep. 86; Hess Co. p. Dawson, 1894, 149 111. 138; 36 N. E. 557; Smith v. Keith & Perry Coal Co., 1889, 36 Mo. App. 567; Thompson v. Gaffey, 1897, 52 Neb. 317; 72 N. W. 314; Brown v. Mahurin, 1859, 39 N. H. 156; Kokomo Strawboard Co. v. Inman, 1892, 134 N. Y. 92; 31 N. E. 248; Wellston Coal Co. v. Franklin Paper Co., 1897, 57 Ohio St. 182; 48 N. E. 888; Tucker v. Billing, 1881, 3 Utah 82; 5 Pac. 554.

2 Mayor v. Pyne, 1825, 3 Bing. 285; Planche v. Colburn, 1831, 8 Bing. 14; Prickett v. Badger, 1856, 1 C. B. N. S. 295; Clay v. Yates, 1856, 1 Hurl. & Nor. 73; Chicago v. Tilley, 1880, 103 U. S. 146; Fowler v. Armour, 1854, 24 Ala. 194; Webster v. Enfield, 1848, 5 Gilm. (10 111.) 298; County of Jackson v. Hall, 1870, 53 111. 440; Anglo-Wyoming Oil Fields v. Miller, 1905, 117 111. App. 552; aff. 216 111. 272; 74 N. E. 821; Hoagland v. Moore, 1828, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 167; Ottoway v. Milroy, 1909, 144 la. 631; 123 N. W. 467; Jenson v. Lee,

1903, 67 Kan. 539; 73 Pac. 72; Wright v. Haskell, 1858, 45 Me. 489; North v. Mallory, 1902, 94 Md. 305; 51 Atl. 89; Brown v. Woodbury, 1903, 183 Mass. 279; 67 N. E. 327; Hemminger v. Western Assur. Co., 1893, 95 Mich. 355; 54 N. W. 949; Siebert v. Leonard, 1871, 17 Minn. 433; McCullough v. Baker, 1871, 47 Mo. 401; Moore v. Board of Regents, 1908, 215 Mo. 705; 115 S. W. 6; Cook

& Woldson v. Gallatin R. Co., 1903, 28 Mont. 509; 73 Pac. 131; Thompson v. Gaffey, 1897, 52 Neb. 317; 72 N. W. 314; Stephen v. Camden & Phila. Soap Co., 1907, 75 N. J. L. 648; 68 Atl. 69; Person where the injured party has fully performed before the repudiation or breach occurs, the right to restitution is not recognized.1 If such full performance entitles the injured party, under the contract, to a liquidated sum of money, i.e. raises a debt, he may, it is true, sue in indebitatus assumpsit,2 but the measure of his recovery is what the defendant promised to pay him, not what the goods or services are reasonably worth.3 v. Stoll, 1902, 72 App. Div. 141; 76 N. Y. Supp. 324; aff. 174 N. Y. 548; 67 N. E. 1089; Derby v. Johnson, 1848, 21 Vt. 17; Preble v. Bottom, 1855, 27 Vt. 249.

1 Anderson v. Rice, 1852, 20 Ala. 239; Campbell v. Dist. of Col., 1876, 2 MacAr. (D. C.) 533; Reams v. Wilson, 1908, 147 N. C. 304; 60 S. E. 1124; Shropshire v. Adams, 1905, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 339; 89 S. W. 448.

2 Stone v. Rodgers, 1837, 2 Mees. & Wels. 443; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 1813, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 299; Dermott v. Jones, 1864, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Hunter v. Waldron, 1845, 7 Ala. 753; Massey v. Greenabaum Bros., 1904, 5 Penn. (Del.) 20; 58 Atl. 804; Shepard v. Mills, 1898, 173 111. 223; 50 N. E. 709; Peterson v. Pusey, 1908, 237 111. 204; 86 N. E. 692; Shilling v. Templeton, 1879, 66 Ind. 585; Rogers v. Brown, 1908, 103 Me. 478; 70 Atl. 206; Southern Bldg., etc., Asso. v. Price, 1898, 88 Md. 155; 41 Atl. 53; 42 L. R. A. 206; Nicol v. Fitch, 1897, 115 Mich. 15; 72 N. W. 988; 69 Am. St. Rep. 542; Morin v. Robarge, 1903, 132 Mich. 337; 93 N. W. 886; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Pressley, 1871, 3 Morris (45 Miss.) 66; Barnett v. Sweringen, 1898, 77 Mo. App. 64; Hosley v. Black, 1863, 28 N. Y. 438. And see Keener, "Quasi-Contracts," p. 301; Wald's Pollock, "Contracts" (Williston's ed.), p. 337.