124 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ceeded in proving, by clear and satisfactory evidence, not only
the existence of the contract, as laid in his bill, but has he
shown a part performance of that identical agreement? It
would seem to be clear in this case, that the contract of sale
about which these parties were negotiating, was not intended
to rest in parol. It was designed to have been reduced to
writing, as is shown by the two papers exhibited with the bill
and answer; and it is not easy to understand, if the terms
were all adjusted, and no impediment existed to the complete
consummation of the contract, why it was not in fact reduced
lo writing.

The Chancellor after alluding to the denial by the defend-
ants, as above stated, of their alleged acceptance of the terms
of the agreement as reduced to writing, by the complainant,
and to the above account of the transaction, as given by them,
said: now, unless this is true, or unless some difficulty existed
to the consummation of the agreement, it is not easy to imagine
a plausible reason, for the failure of the parties to put their con-
tract in the form which the statute requires. And apart from
the inference, thus arising against the completion of the con-
tract, he said he thought there was a want of such clear evi-
dence of its terms, and of the act of part performance, as would
alone justify the court in decreeing a specific execution.

The contract to be proved, said he, must be the identical
contract charged in the bill, and this must be the same with
the one partly performed; and as Chancellor Kent says, there
must be no equivocation or uncertainty in the case; the
plaintiff cannot get the relief which he asks for, unless he has
clearly established the contract as charged, and also a part per-
formance of the same contract.

The bill in this case, charges a particular agreement, the
terms of which were reduced to writing, and though not
signed by, were, as alleged, exhibited to, and approved by the
defendants. And it also charges a part performance of this
agreement. The answer positively denies both the agreement
and the act of part performance, and exhibits another paper,
varying in some respects from the paper filed by the complain-