When a party has been induced by fraud to make a conveyance of real estate, he has a choice of remedies against the defrauding grantee. He may seek restitution of the land or its proceeds in equity or at law on a theory of rescission, or he may affirm the transaction and bring an action for the recovery of damages for the deceit. The actions being logically inconsistent, the granter is not allowed to proceed in both, and must elect whether he will have his property returned to him in specie on his restitution of the price received from the grantee, or recover damages for the fraud and allow the grantee to retain the property. What happens if the defrauded granter dies without having made an election or without having learned of the fraud? Do both of the above actions survive? If so, to whom do they survive? To the same persons or to different persons? If to different persons, which of them may elect between affirmance with damages and rescission with restitution?