This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 edition. Excerpt: ...962. Necessity of Placing Parties in Statu Quo.--Before a plaintiff, who has come into a Court of Equity asking that a contract be rescinded, is entitled to the relief prayed, he must first do equity unto the party with whom he has dealt. It is a general rule of law that a plaintiff will not be granted relief until he has placed the defendant in statu quo, and the plaintiff must have done everything, in his power, to save the defendant harmless.3 Of course it is not possible in every case that may arise that the parties can be placed in statu quo, and thus suffer no injury. The policy of the law is that this be done. For instance, where the mortgagor seeks to have the deed cancelled because the notary who took her examination was a stockholder in the mortgagee corporation, it is contrary to good morals that the deed be cancelled until everything received under it be returned.4 Nor is a minor child required to deed back to her father the land received by her from her father in settlement of her interest in her mother's estate, when in fact the land deeded to her was not her real share in the estate.5 In passing upon the offer of plaintiff to restore the consideration, it is sufficient where he alleges in his complaint that he is ready to return the consideration, and while upon the witness stand he offers to return it in open court.6 In asking a cancellation of an instrument conveying interests in property which has been improved, and from the nature of the property it is impossible to restore it to the former owner in precisely the same condition as when received, it is sufficient a repara-, 1 Cud v. Rutter, 1 P. Will. 570, and Cox's notes (2 and 3); Colt v. Netterville, 2 P. Will. 394, 395; post, 994, 997, 1004, 1085. 1...