A conveyance of land is frequently made, usually by a person advanced in years, in consideration of a promise to in Gordon v. Richardson, 185 Mass. 492, 69 L. R. A. 867, 70 N. E. 1027

31. Hughes v. Metropolitan R. Co., R. L. 1 C. P. Div. 120, 2 App. Cas. 439; Burke v. Price, 15 Ir. Ch. Rep. 106, Lilley v. Fifty Associates, 101 Mass. 432; Powers Shoe Co. v. Odd Fellows Hall Co., 133 Mo. App. 229, 113 S. W. 253, Thropp v. Field, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Green) 82; Horton v. New York Cent. R. Co., 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 30.

32. Ante Sec. 83.

33. 4 Kent. Comm. 125; Pop-ham v. Bamfield, 1 Vern. 79; Earl of Foversham v. Watson, Freem. Ch. 35; Falkland v. Bertie, 2 Vern. 333; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. U. S. 203, 21 L. Ed. 447; Wells v.

Smith, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 78; Donnelly v. Eastes, 94 Wis. 390, 69 N. W. 157.

34. Co. Litt. 237a, Butler's note; 2 Story Eq. Jur. Sec. 1315; Hayward v. Angell, 1 Vern. 222; Woodman v. Blake, 2 Vern. 222; Barnardiston v. Fane, 2 Vern. 366; Cage v. Russell, 2 Vent. 352; Hol-linrake v. Lister, 1 Russ. 500, 508; Baltimore City Bank v. Smith, 3 G. & J. (Md.) 265; Chip-man v. Thompson, Walk Ch. (Mich.) 405; DeForest v. Bates, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 394, 397; Thompson v. Whipple, 5 R. I. 144.

In Bean v. Atkins, 87 Vt. 376, 89 Atl. 643, there was a limitation over in favor of X in defeasance of a life estate in case the life tenant failed to furnish support on the part of the grantee, ordinarily the grantor's son or other near relative, to support the grantor during the balance of the hitter's life. Such a conveyance is not usually in terms on condition that the support be furnished, but it is occasionally so expressed, and in view of the ordinary attitude of the courts in favor of divesting the grantee's title upon his failure to furnish support, the analogy between such conveyances and those subject to a condition subsequent is sufficiently close to justify their consideration in the same connection.

In one or two jurisdictions the courts have apparently adopted the view that, even in the absence of any words of condition, a conveyance in consideration of a promise of support is to be construed as a conveyance subject to a condition of support.35 But even when the conveyance is regarded as subject to such a condition, and the condition is referred to as a basis for the grant of relief, the relief which is given is occasionally equitable in character, that is, it takes the form of a decree for rescission or cancellation of the conveyance, rather than of a reentry or an action of ejectment,36 as in the ordinary case of a conveyance subject to a to X. Relief was given by equity in favor of the life tenant, it not appearing that the failure to furnish support was wilful or intentional. This was properly a case of condition prscedens (See Ante Sec. 75, notes 61-64) though the court discussed it as a case of condition subsequent.

35. Huffman v. Rickets, 60 Ind. App. 526, 111 N. E. 322; Blum v. Bush. 86 Mich. 206, 49 N. W. 142; Glocke v. Glocke, 113 Wis. 303, 57 L. R. A. 458, 89 N. W. 118; Brenger v. Brenger, 142 Wis. 26, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 387, 135 Am. St. Rep. 1050, 19 Am. Cas. 1136, 125 N. W. 109; Young v.

Young, 157 Wis. 424, 147 N. W. 361.

36. Huffman v. Ricketts, 60 Ind. App. 526, 111 N. E. 322; Martin v. Adams, 171 Ky. 246, 188 S. W. 318; Adkins v. Adkins, 171 Ky. 762, 188 S. W. 843; Fluharty v. Fluharty, 54 W. Va. 407, 46 S. E. 199; White v. Bailey, 65 W. Va. 573, 64 S. E. 1019, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232; 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. But that there should in such case be a reentry by the grantor, or its equivalent, see Wilkes v. Grover, 138 Ga. 407, 75 S. E. 353; Blum v.

Condition subsequent.37 In most of the cases on the subject, however, there is no reference to any condition, as distinguished from a promise, of support, and the court grants rescission or cancellation of the conveyance by reason merely of the nonperformance of the promise. Occasionally the grant of such relief is in terms based on the inadequacy of the legal remedy by action for damages,38 but usually the court, in granting relief, makes no reference to any specific doctrine of equity, basing its action on the injustice of allowing the grantee to retain the land without performing the promise on the faith of which the conveyance was made to him.39 It would seem, however, that the action of the courts in thus rescinding the conveyance by reason of the non performance of the promise of support may be regarded as involving an application, or rather perhaps an extension, of the doctrine that, upon the repudiation of a contract by one party thereto, the other party may rescind the contract and recover what he has paid thereon.40

Bush, 86 Mich. 206, 49 N. W. 142; Strothers v. Woodcox, 142 Iowa 648, 121 N. W. 51; Richter v. Richter, 111 Ind. 456, 12 N. E. 698; Rollins v. Riley, 44 N. H. 9; Davison v. Davison, 71 N. H. 180, 51 Atl. 905; Spaulding v. Hal-lenbeck, 35 N. Y. 204.

37. Ante Sec. 85.

38. Diggins v. Doherty, 4 Mack-ey (15 D. C.) 172; Reeder v. Reeder, 89 Ky. 529, 12 S. W. 1063; Grant v. Bell, 26 R. I. 288, 58 Atl. 951; Lowman v. Crawford, 99 Va. 688, 40 S. E. 17; Martin v. Hall, 11.") Va. 358, 79 S. E. 320.

39. Whittaker v. Trammoll, 86 Ark. 251, 110 S. W. 1041; Martinez v. Martinez, 57 Colo. 292, 141 Pac 469; Beck v. Hoyt, 39 Conn. 9, Penfield v. Penfield, 41 Conn. 474, Cree v. Sherry, 138 Ind. 354, 37

N. E. 787; Maddox v. Maddox, 135 Ky. 403, 122 S. W. 201; Humbles v. Harris, 151 Ky. C85, 152 S. W. 797; Lockwood V. Lockwood, 124 Mich. 627, 83 N. W. 613; Bruer v. Bruer, 109 Minn. 260, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 608, 123. N. W. 813; Haatja v. Saarenpaa, 118 Minn. 255, 136 N. W. 871; Reid v. Burns, 13 Ohio St. 49; Tomsik v. Tomsik, 78 Neb. 103, 110 N. W. 674; Thomas v. Thomas, 24 Ore. 251, 33 Pac. 565; Martin v. Hall, 115 Va. 358, 79 S. E.320; Tysor v. Adams, 116 Va. 239, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1197, 81 S. E. 76: Gardner v. Frederick, 96 Wash. 324, 65 Pac. 85.