This would be but to permit the defendants in error to set aside the contract in part for fraud, in so far as against their interest, and to enforce that part of the contract beneficial to them; in other words, to retain all the benefits of the contract and escape its obligation on account of the fraud, which would be in direct violation of the fundamental principle governing the rescission of contracts, to wit, that same must be repudiated as a whole or affirmed as a whole. Caldwell v. Dutton, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 369, 49 S.W. 723; Paige on Contracts, vol. 1, § 353; 13 C.J. 623; Continental Jewelry v. Pugh, 168 Ala. 295, 53 So. 324, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 657; Syme-Eagle Co. v. Joplin Gro. Co., 206 Mo. App. 357, 229 S.W. 246; Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Morse v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 205. The contract of sale in this case was entire, in that but one consideration was paid for the 900 bundles of hoops.

The sale to Lloyd by appellees could not be rescinded in part and affirmed in part. Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Moore v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 205; 3 Am. Eng. Enc. Law, 926, note 1; Kinney v. Kiernan, 49 N.Y. 165; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb., 594; Powers v. Benedict, 88 N.Y. 605; Molla v. Tuska, 87 N.Y. 166; Herman on Est., secs. 1039, 1040; Ryan v. Brant, 42 Ill. 78; Moriarity v. Stofferans, 89 Ill. 528; Estes v. Reynolds, 75 Mo., 563; Wright v. Zigler, 70 Ga. 501, 512; Farwell v. Meyers, 59 Mich. 184. 2.

3. If Frank, Herman Co. were induced to make the sale of the goods in controversy to B.F. Loyd on false representations made by the said Loyd at the time of the sale as to his financial condition and solvency, then upon the discovery of the fraud Frank, Herman Co. had the right to rescind the sale and recover the goods sold; but if after they discovered that such statements were false and with full notice of the fraud of said Loyd, they treated the contract as still existing and proceeded to collect a part of the purchase money of the goods sold, they thereby affirmed the sale and forever lost the right to rescind the sale. Mansfield v. Trigg, 113 Mass. 350; Moore v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 205; 3 A. E. Enc. L., p. 726, note 1; Kinney v. Kiernan, 49 N.Y. 165; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb., 594; Powers v. Benedict, 88 N.Y. 605; Molla v. Tuska, 87 N.Y. 166; Herman on Estoppel, secs. 1039, 1040; Ryan v. Brant, 42 Ills., 78; Moriarity v. Stofferans, 89 Ills., 528; Estes v. Reynolds, 75 Mo., 563; Wright v. Zigler, 70 Ga. 501, 512; Farwell v. Meyers, 59 Mich. 184. DeGraffenried Young and T.B. Stinchcomb, for appellees. — 1. The interests of the several plaintiffs in this suit are so nearly identical, as to make them but one party, in the sense in which that term is used in the statute, and all plaintiffs together were entitled only to six peremptory challenges. 2 Sayles' Civ. Stats., art. 3034; Hargrave v. Vaughn, 18 S.W. Rep., 695; Jones v. Ford, 60 Tex. 127.