I concur in much of what is said and all that is held in the opinion except the holding on the last page that the rescission of the transfers to Jarvis and Eades is “conditioned upon the United States making provision for restitution of the purchase price.”
I disagree with this holding not because I disagree with it in principle and think that this ought not to be the law, but because I think, that it is not a correct statement of the law under the decided cases, and that I am constrained thereby to disagree with it.