CASES

IN THE

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ISAAC TYSCW, Ja. 1

vs. ^. MARCH TEKM, 1847.
THOMAS B. WATTS. 3

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE—MUTUALITY—OTTCEBTAWTr.

A BILL for the*speoific performance of a contract is an application to the sound
discretion of the court, which withholds or grants relief according to the cir-
cumstances of each particular case, and in the exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction in such cases, the court, though not exempt from the general
rules and principles of equity, acts with more freedom than when exercising
ite ordinary powers.

The contract must be fair, and just, and certain, and founded on an adequate
consideration, and if deficient in either of these requisites, its performance
will not be decreed; hence (he plaintiff who seeks the enforcement must
make out a stronger -case than is required of him who resists the decree.

The contract must also possess the essential ingredient of mutuality, and in
cases of inequality of obligation, it is better to leave the plaintiff to his rem-
edy at law for damages; for if equity acts at all, it must act ex rig-ore, and
carry the contract into execution with unmitigated severity.

The manifest object of the defendant in this case, (and which he believed was
secured by the contract,) was to have the minerals on his farm worked as
well as explored, and by the contract he gave full power to P., the assignor
of the plaintiff, to make explorations and to work the mines, but the only en-
gagement on the part of P. being limited to explorations, and he not being
bound to work the mines, the contract was held deficient in reciprocity of
obligation, and its specific execution refused.
2