Chisholm Water Supply Co. v. City of Chisholm

All that is said by the Chief Justice has my cordial approval. But I beg leave to add just a little. The defense is an effort by the city to rescind. If Ave assume fraud inducing the contract, it was well knoAvn to the city at the time, or shortly after, the contract was made. So the city’s long performance of its contractual obligations was plainly with complete knoAvledge of whatever fraud there Avas. That is, with knowledge of the fraud, it affirmed the contract. Therefore it cannot now disaffirm. Its right to rescind, if there ever was such right, has been lost by its own election. This…