18 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

This contract, the Court of Appeals say, is unequal in its
stipulations, binding one party and not the other, and conse-
quently unreasonable and unfit to be carried into specific exe-
cution.

It seems to the Chancellor, that so far as regards the chief
inducement to the contract on the part of the defendant in this
case, to wit: the working and making the deposits of mineral
profitable to him, it is precisely like the contract in Geiger if
Green, because here, as in that case, the power to work the
minerals is a privilege to Petherick, which he may or may not
exercise, in his discretion, and consequently this contract, like
that, is binding on one party and not the other, and unfit for
that reason to be executed.

The bill, however, was not filed by Petherick, but by his
assignee, a party with whom the defendant made no contract
at all. One who has entered into no stipulations with him of
any description, and who, although he has purchased the in-
terest of Petherick in the agreement, has entered into no en-
gagement to perform such stipulations as the contract may be
supposed to have imposed upon Petherick.

The Chancellor thinks it would be difficult to maintain, suc-
cessfully, that upon a bill filed by the defendant against this
plaintiff, the latter could be compelled to perform those acts
which it was clearly the intention of the defendant to secure,
when he«made this contract; and if so, the want of the ele-
ment of mutuality, as between these parties, is supposed to be
fatal to the right of the present plaintiff to a decree for a spe-
cific performance.

It being the opinion of the court, for the reason stated, that
the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, and that the bill mast be
dismissed, it is not thought necessary or proper to examine the
other questions raised in the argument, and by the pleadings,
and therefore no opinion is expressed upon them. It may,
however, not be improper to say, that there does not—in the
confusion and discrepancies which have been pointed out and
commented upon in the statement, of the dates of these trans-
actions—appear in the judgment of the Chancellor to be any