112 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

paid or tendered. The answer alleges a tender, but there is no
proof of it, and it cannot of course be assumed without proof.

The complainant is not suing at law for the recovery of the
land, but in equity for the payment of the money,. upon the
ground, that the payment cannot be enforced at law, in con-
sequence of the insolvency of the company. He has forborne
to institute these proceedings until the road is finished, and
valuable and expensive improvements are made upon the prop-
erty; and I, therefore, am of opinion; that in equity, he is
entitled to no more than a decree for a payment of the sums
awarded him by the jury, with interest from the period of the
confirmation of the inquisitions by the court. A decree will be
signed for that purpose, payable out of the revenues of the
company, within some reasonable time, and in default thereof,
the revenues will be sequestered until the claim is paid. The
complainant is, also, I think, entitled to his costs.

It may be further observed in reference to the prayer of the
bill, that the complainant may be restored to a possession of a
part of the land condemned, that if any such right exists, under
(he circumstances of this case, his remedy is by action of eject-
ment, and not by bill in equity.

CHARLES A. WATERS,

vs. DECEMBBR TERM, 1847.
CHARLES HOWARD AND WIFE ET AL.)

(SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE—ELECTION.]

UPON a bill for the specific performance of a contract, the court must entertain
bo reasonable doubt of the existence of the contract, and be satisfied that it
is one, which, looking to what is just and reasonable, ought to be enforced.

;The specific performance of contracts in equity, is not a matter of absolute
right in the party, but of sound discretion in the court; and unless the court
is satisfied that the application is fair, just and reasonable in every respect, it
will refuse to interfere, but leave the party to his remedy at law for compen-
sation in damages.

hi contracts relating to personal property, unless it can be clearly shown, that
adequate compensation cannot be given by an action at law, chancery will
not interfere.