Cited by

I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , .

It is a general rule that a party who rescinds a contract on the ground of fraud must place the other party in statu quo by return *357 ing wbat be Has received, but “the party guilty of the fraud is not entitled to anything more than substantial justice, and a fair opportunity to receive what he parted with.” I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , .

As said in the case of I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , : “The party guilty of the fraud is not entitled to anything more than substantial justice, and a fair opportunity to receive what he parted with.” In the instant case it cannot be determined fully what is substantial justice until plaintiff’s cause of action and the amount thereof is determined in the

Co. 67 Minn. 74 , ; Mlnazek v. Libera, 83 Minn. 288 , ; I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , .

The rule applicable to the conduct of one seeking to rescind a contract obtained through fraud is well stated in I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , , as follows: “The party guilty of the fraud, is not entitled to anything more than substantial justice, and a fair opportunity to receive what he parted with.

Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 , ; I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , .

Making due allowance for surplusage and unnecessary details, the complaint fairly states a cause of action in deceit, as defined in I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , .

Corse v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , .

I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , .

L. L. Corse & Co. v. Minn. Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331 , .