Viewing page 15 of 21

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

It is true, partial rescission is sometimes sustained, but is not allowable under the circumstances here. It is not enough to say that this part of the land arbitrarily cut out of appellee's contract was not the entire consideration moving him to purchase; it is not enough that other valuable land supporting even the larger part of the consideration to be paid, is left him. When we say that hte contract is not divisible, as we do, the ordinary rule that, "*** one who has sufficient cause to rescind the contract for fraud must rescind the whole or none," prevails. 6 R. C. L. 936, cited by us in Ford v. Norton et al, 32 N. M. 518, 522, 260 P. 411, where we dealt with an attempted partial rescission upon the theory of the contract being separable. Appellee may not have been interested in the land without the area excluded. This may be valuable because of its touching upon Apache Canyon. In any event the court cannot inquire into the conflicting appraisals which parties put upon such considerations.

Conceding, for the purpose of argument, that a  finding of fraud or mutual mistake, might have justified a complete cancelation with restoration of the purchase price to appellee, obviously there could not be a partial cancelation of such a contract, or a modification or amendment thereof such as was attempted. Certainly where no fraud was practiced and where the mistake rested equally, if not entirely, upon the Commissioner himself, a cancelation without return of purchase money could not be sustained. See U. S. v. Budd, 43 Fed. 630, affirmed by U. S. Supreme Court in U. S. v. Budd, 144 U. S. 154 ___Law Ed. ____,and U. S. v. White, 17 Fed. 561. There is not finding of fraud or perjury which would justify cancelation with forfeiture of purchase price as is held to be proper under the Federal Statute pertaining to cancelation of patents to public lands. U. S. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 233.

New Mexico has no forfeiture statute, and it is clear that in the absence of such, any effort on the part of the state to