348 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

will be the view which every one will take of the subject who
will reflect carefully upon the consequences which must result
from a different tendency.

The rule is believed to be firmly established, that to entitle a
party to take a case out of the statute of frauds, on the ground
of part performance of the contract, he must make out by clear
and satisfactory proof the existence of the identical contract laid
in his bill. It is not enough that the act relied on is evidence
of some agreement, but it must be unequivocal and satisfactory
evidence of the contract charged in the bill. Philips vs. Thomp-
son, 1 Johns. Ch. Rp., 131; Parkhwst vs. Van Courtland, ib.
273; 3 Kenfs Corn. 451; 2 Story's Equity, sec. 764. This
court has upon several occasions been called upon to express
its opinion upon cases resembling in principle the present, and
the conclusions to which it has arrived after a careful consider-
ation of the subject, have been adverse to the relief asked for.

The court, if it acts at all in such cases, must act upon the
entire contract as laid in the bill. It must be executed in all
its parts specifically and rigorously, and hence the indispensa-
ble necessity that each and every part of the agreement set up
in the bill should be clearly established by the proof. Owens vs.
Baldwin and Wheeler, ante, page 120; Waters vs. Waters, ante,
page 196.

Unless this can be done, it is obviously better to send the
plaintiff to a court of law, where relief can be given in dam-
ages, with a moderation agreeable to equity and good con-
science, and where the various pretensions of the parties can
be considered by a tribunal more competent to decide upon the
extent of the actual injury sustained by the non-performance of
the agreement.

In the present case, the contract as laid in the bill, is con-
ceded not to be sustained by the proof, and hence the condi-
tional agreement to amend the bill by striking out the allegation
upon the subject of interest upon the purchase money. The
right to amend this bill, and especially at this stage of the pro-
ceedings, is contested, and perhaps upon an examination of
the books of practice and authorities, it would be found not to