The bill is generally held to be insufficient unless it contains an allegation showing when the plaintiff claims to have discovered the fraud

114. Aldrich v. Schribner, 146 Mich. 609.

115. Morris v. Vyse, 154 Mich. 253; Watson v. Wagner, 202 Mich.

397; Banski v. Michalski, 204 Mich. 15.

116. Mich. Cir. Ct. Rule 21, Sec. 6.

which is the basis of the action, for the court must be able to determine whether he acted with due diligence in repudiating the transaction or claiming his right to rescind.117 If the dates set forth in the bill show the lapse of a considerable period of time after the original transaction so as to raise a presumption of laches if not sufficiently explained, there must also be allegations explaining or adequately excusing the delay.118

Sec. 230. Offer To Restore Or Do Equity

The plaintiff must offer in his bill to restore to the defendant whatever property or valuable consideration he may have received under it, as the prime object of a suit for rescission is to undo the original transaction and restore the former status.119

This offer may be made in the form of an allegation that the plaintiff is ready and willing to repay to the defendant all sums advanced by him under the contract,120 or to execute a deed of reconveyance. And if the dealings between the parties have been such that there must be a consideration and adjustment of their relative rights and claims, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to allege in his bill that he is ready to do and willing to do equity in the premises.121