A court of law can award damages for the breach of a contract or for the deceit or fraud by which a party was induced to enter into it, but cannot rescind a con-

61. Louisville Ry. Co. v. Ohio Improvement Co.. 57 Fed. 42.

62. McHenry v. Hazard, 45 N. Y.

580.

63. Smythe v. Henry, 41 Fed. 705.

64. Eggers v. Anderson, 63 N. J. Eq. 264, 49 Atl. 578.

65. Summers v. Abernathy, 234 Mo. 126, 136 S. W. 2S9.

66. Springfield Traction Co. v. Warrick, 149 111. 470, 94 N. E. 933; Witt v. Sims (Ga.), 78 S. E. 467; Shaeffer v. Sheade, 7 Black (Ind.)

178; Thomas v. McCue, 19 Wash. 187, 53 Pac. 161.

67. Where the plaintiff files a bill for a rescission of the contract but he himself is not in position to rescind, a court of equity will retain jurisdiction and award the plaintiff such damages as he has suffered and will declare such damages a lien upon the real estate conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant. Albright v. Stockhill, 208 Mich. 469; Merrill v. Wilson. 66 Mich. 232; Carroll v. Rice, Walk. Ch. 373; Le-fevre v. Chamberlain. 228 Mass. 294. 117 N. E. 327.

tract or cancel a deed. While the jurisdiction of equity in cases of fraud is undoubted, it does not necessarily follow that a suit is maintainable in equity for the rescission of a contract merely on the allegation of fraud, but there must be, in connection with that element, some special circumstance which renders rescission, by the mere act of the plaintiff and his remedy at law, not adaptable adequately to cure the wrong.68

A court of equity will not interfere where the law affords a complaining party a plain, adequate, and complete remedy for the injury he claims to have suffered. It has been held, however, that although a clear right of rescission exists, the remedy which the law affords by the recovery of a judgment for money or property is necessarily incomplete and inadequate because of the lack of power to effect a rescission by a direct adjudication thereof so that, when the law has done its utmost in the way of giving compensation in damages it must still leave the contract in force, which may be a detriment to the complaining party or a benefit to his adversary.69

An executed contract for the sale of real estate, where no actual fraud has been perpetrated, will not be rescinded in equity on account of defects in the title, or the discovery of undisclosed incumbrances, or other such matters, since the purchaser has an adequate remedy at law by an action on the covenants or warranties in his deed.70

A bill in equity for cancellation of a conveyance is not the proper remedy for injuries suffered by the breach of a condition subsequent or by the failure to redeem promissory representations which do not go to the entire consideration since the injured party can be adequately compensated by an award of damages in an action at law.71

It is the general opinion that where a party is induced to enter into a contract by fraud or false representations, he has

68. Hall v. Bell, 143 Wis. 296, 177 N. W. 967.

69. Bruner v. Miller, 59 W. Va. 36, 52 S. E. 995; Allread v. Harris, 75 Ga. 687.

70. Haldane v. Sweet, 55 Mich. 196; Ryerson v. Willis, 81 N. Y. 277.

71. Lee v. Timken, 10 App. Div. 213, 41 N. Y. Supp. 979; Bryan v. Houseman Spitzley Corp., 213 Mich. 236; State Security & Realty Co. v. Badger, 200 Mich. 104; Painter v. Lebanon Land Co., 164 Mich. 260.

an absolute right to have it rescinded, and that though the facts may be such as would sustain a common law action for fraud and deceit, and though he may, if he chooses, elect to pursue that course, he cannot be compelled to do so, and the existence of such a remedy at law, is no ground for dismissing his suit in equity.72