16 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

formance, except where both parties had a right by the agree-
ment to compel a specific performance, according to the ad-
vantage which they might be supposed to have derived from it."

The Court of Appeals, in the case referred to, of Geiger et
al vs. Green, say, that "it is established that unless there is to
be found in the contract, the essential ingredient of mutuality,
a court of equity will not compel its specific execution." And
in that case the bill was dismissed, because of the absence of
that indispensable ingredient.

The contract upon which the bill in this case is filed, and
the specific performance of which it seeks to enforce, contem-
plated not only the exploration, but the working of the mines
of copper and other minerals on the farm of the defendant.
It recites the desire of the defendant to have them explored
and worked, and the willingness of the said Thomas Petherick
to undertake such explorations and working, and then in con-
sideration of one dollar paid to the defendant by Petherick, the
former agreed to give to the latter, his heirs and assigns, "full
power to make explorations and works on the said farm, as he,
the said Petherick, might think proper for such purpose," &c.,
and after a reservation to the defendant of a seignorage of one
full fifteenth part of the minerals, Petherick for himself, his heirs
and assigns, stipulated that he would on or before the tenth day
of July then next, "commence proper operations for ascertain-
ing, by explorations, the mineral prospects on the said farm."

Although therefore it was the manifest design and object of
the said defendant, to have the minerals upon his farm worked,
as well as explored, and although for a small pecuniary con-
sideration he gave Petherick full power to make such explora-
tions and works, the only stipulation on the part of Petherick
is, by a certain period "to commence operations for ascertain-
ing, by explorations, the mineral .prospects on the said farm."
The engagement, therefore, on the part of Petherick was limit-
ed to the explorations, and he was not bound, according to any
interpretation of the contract, to work the mines. Whilst there-
fore the contract gives to him the power to work the mines, as
he might think proper, the only corresponding obligation on his