OGDEN v. OGDEN.—1 BLAND. 271

the Court will not decree the specific performance of that which
appears doubtful as a contract. Ruddleston v. Briscoe, 11 Ves.
583; Stratford v. Bosworth, 2 Ves. & B. 341; Alien v. Bennet, 3
Taunt. 173.

But this letter is deficient in almost every substantial particular.
It is not a promise in any sense. The writer speaks of circum-
stances which have occurred, of a marriage then contemplated; of
what he intended to do; and of the manner in which he meant to
dispose of his property. But there is not the least intimation that
he had brought about the courtship, or had encouraged John W.
Ogden to marry his niece by any promise of a fortune with her.
He does not undertake, agree, or oblige himself to give any thing,
He tells his brother what he means to do, should the marriage take
place; but he binds himself to nothing; every thing is reserved
entirely within his own power. Ranaall v. Morgan, 12 Tres. 67;
Morison v. Tumour, 18 Ves. 175. The plaintiffs had resolved to
marry before this letter was written; therefore, even supposing
it had been shewn to John W. Ogden, it could not have been the
inducement upon which he addressed and became engaged to
marry Nancy Ogden. Whatever were his hopes and expecta-
tions, they existed prior to, and independently of this letter; they
could not have arisen in any respect from it. Ayliffe v. Tracy, 2
P. Will. 65. There is no proof, that the late Amos Ogden had in-
duced the plaintiffs to entertain any hopes or expectations of his
bestowing any thing upon them in consideration of their marriage.
After they had become engaged, he then expressed his entire ap-
probation, and he then formed his liberal determination; but there
is no proof that he himself communicated it to them prior to their
engagement. And in his letter to his brother, there is nothing
which gives to that determination the character of a contract.

Being perfectly satisfied upon these grounds, that the plaintiffs
have not established such a case as to entitle them to any relief
whatever, I deem it wholly unnecessary to say any thing in rela-
tion to the doctrine of satisfaction and election; or how i'ar the
devise to John W. Ogden and his wife, and their having actually
elected to take under the will, is to be considered as a satisfaction
and election in bar of their claim; since it is my opinion
* that the testator had not bound himself to them by any
contract whatever.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the bill of complaint be, and the
same is hereby dismissed with costs, to be taxed by the register.