SULUVAN VS. TUCK. 59

JOHN SULLIVAN ET AL.^

vs. ^- JCLT TERM, 1847.
TUCK, EX'A OF BOWIE. 3

[SPECIFIC PERPOllMAKrCE—HEN ON GROWING CBOPg——REMEDY AT LAW—DAM-
AGES.]

THE defendant's testator entered into a contract with the complainants by
which they were to become his agents for the sale of his crops, advance him
money and accept his drafts, for the payment of which he pledged his crops on
hand, and the growing crops of the year 1847. Upon the faith of this agree-
ment, complainants made large advances to testator, and at the time of his
death, which occured in January, 1848, he was largely indebted to them.
Upon a bill, by complainants, claiming a Ken on the corn and tobacco in hand,
and on the crop of wheat sown in the fall of 1847, and to enforce the specific
performance of this contract, it was HEID—

That this was a positive agreement on the part of the testator to send to com-
plainants, to cover their advances to him, his crops of wheat, tobacco and
corn, which would be marketable in the year 1847; and also, the wheat
crop seeded in that year. And that this court would enforce its specific ex-
ecution.

That theKen founded on the relation oftheparties, as factor and principal, would
not apply to this case; that lien being merely the right to retain a thing, of
which the party retaining must have either the actual or constructive posses-
sion. The plaintiffs' title to relief, therefore, depends upon the contract es-
tablished by the letters of the testator, and the facts appearing by the plead-
ings-
Courts of equity do not enforce the specific performance of contracts relating
to personal property, with the same facility and universality as those relating
to real estate: because, in the former case, courts of law usually afford a
• complete remedy.

But whenever a violation of the contract cannot be correctly estimated in
damages, or wherever, from the nature of the contract, a specific performance
is indispensable to justice, a court of equity will not be deterred from inter-
fering, because personal property is the subject of the agreement.
The expenses in getting the crops ready for market should be paid out of the
proceeds of sale.

[This bill was filed for the specific performance of a contract
entered into by .the defendant's testator, Robert W. Bowie, of
Prince George's county, with the complainants, trading under
the firm of John Sullivan and Sons, in Baltimore. The com-
plainants agreed to become the agents of the deceased for the
sale of his crops; to advance money, and to accept his drafts,