Cited by

Triggs v. Jones, 46 Minn. 277 , ; Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; Bergstrom v. Pickett, 148 Minn. 224 , ; 19 Am.

Plaintiffs, after justifiably paying themselves a reasonable salary (Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. E. A. 1916F, 476), sustained a loss.

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , 149 N.W.

The situation here is not such as to be controlled by the rule applied in Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476.

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476, while a suit for rescission, recognizes the fact that, where the property is a going business, the defrauded party is not required to abandon it in order to obtain relief.

® * * It is only necessary for the defrauded party in such cases to make a fair offer to return what he received under the contract, and demand what he parted with; and, if his offer and demand be refused, it is sufficient if he makes proof thereof *484 at the trial, and restoration in such practicable way as the court may direct.” See also Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476.

If these fail to extricate the wrongdoer from the position he has assumed in the execution of the contract, it is in no sense the fault of his intended victim, and upon the principles of eternal justice, whatever consequences may follow, they should rest on the head of the offender alone.” See also as to the question of exact status quo, Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; Neblett v. Mac-farland, 92 U. S. 101 , 23 L. ed. 471; Freeman v. Reagan, 26 Ark.

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , .

In addition to the cases from the Supreme Court of the United States, Long v. Athol, supra, and Faber v. New York City, supra, we think Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476, and Bowen v. O’Brien, 144 Minn. 130 , , justify the holding that there was no affirmance of the contract or waiver that should stand in the way of the relief that was granted.

But it is not an invariable rule that there can never be a rescission if it is beyond the power of the party seeking to rescind to return to the other party to the contract all he received from him, Corse v. Minn; Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , ; Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; and paragraph 3, § 69, of the Uniform Sales Act does not forbid a rescission whenever the buyer cannot return all the goods.

This was repeated in Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476, where it was said that although the defrauded party might be unable to return all the property he received in the condition in which he received it, yet, if such inability resulted from the fault of the wrongdoer, the defrauded party might still rescind the contract and recover b

Co. 74 Minn. 530, 537 , ; Clark v. Wells, 12, 7 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; Hall v. Bank of Baldwin, 143 Wis.

12 R. C. L. 343; note 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 208; I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minn. Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , ; Neibuhr v. Gage, 99 Minn. 149 , , ; Ritko v. Grove, 102 Minn. 312 314 , ; Ballard v. Lyons, 114 Minn. 264 , , 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 301; Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 476; Lyons v. Snider, 136 Minn. 252, 255 , .

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L.R.A.

And in Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , L.R.A.

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , is not authority for the proposition that all bills incurred in operating this business, prior to plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud practiced upon him, must be paid before he is permitted to rescind by his own act.

Clark v. Wells, 127 Minn. 353 , , is not authority for the right to retain possession *185 while insisting upon the right to rescind.