WATERS VS. HOWARD. 117

every respect, it will refuse to interfere, but leave the party to
his remedy at law, for a compensation in damages. 2 Story,
Equity, secs., 769, 770; Carberry vs. Tannehill, 1 Har. ff
Johns., 224; Seymour vs. Delancey, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep., 222.

Now, what is the nature of the application in the present case,
and how is the court to afford the redress which is asked of it ?
The promise charged in the bill, and established by the evi-
dence—if indeed any promise is shown—was to the surviving
complainant and his late wife, then Miss Somerville, and was
unquestionably intended, if made at all, to provide for them, and
their children, if any should be born, a support. But the wife
is dead, and there was no issue of the marriage, and the sur-
viving husband now claims to have this contract specifically
enforced for his exclusive benefit, although he has received, in
another form, and by the will of his grandfather, property to a
much larger amount. The contract asserted in the bill, it will
be observed, is not merely a contract to convey title to a cer-
tain parcel of land, but embraces an engagement to stock it—
to pay the debts of the grandson—and support him and his
family, for the first year after his marriage. Now, this contract,
if enforced at all, is, as is said in the cases, to be enforced, ex
vigore, and with unmitigated severity. It must be carried into
execution in all its parts, though a part of the consideration has
unquestionably failed, by the death of the wife, childless; as it
is impossible to suppose, if the grandfather ever did make such
a binding engagement as is contended for, that the wife and
children were not in his contemplation, and constituted, in part
at least, the motive for his promise. It seems to me eminently
proper, that a case like this, should be sent to law, where, in the
language of Chancellor Kent, in Seymour and Delancey, "relief
can be afforded in damages, with a moderation agreeably to
equity and good conscience, and where the claims and preten-
sions of each party, can be duly attended to, and be admitted
to govern the assessment"—and in this case, there is a peculiar
reason why the powers of the court should not be exerted in
the form, in which it is applied to. The contract we have seen,
is not confined to real estate, but extends to goods and chattels,