SULLIVAN VS. TUCK. 65

And as from a careful consideration of this contract it ap-
pears to me, a court of law would not be able lo furnish a com-
plete and satisfactory remedy, I think a specific execution of
the agreement should be decreed.

Jt is stated in the answer of the defendant, that expenses
have necessarily been incurred by him in getting the crops ready
for market, and he insists that if the complainants shall be ad-
judged entitled to the relief they seek, those expenses should
be paid out of the proceeds of the sales. ,

My first impression was against this position, but upon re-
flection it seems to me to be well taken. It was his duty to
-complete and take care of the crop, for which purpose he might
employ the necessary agents—Lee vs. Lee and Welch 6 G. &
J., 316—and I can see no good reason why the expenses in-
curred by the executor in the discharge of this necessary duty,
shall not be deducted from the proceeds of the crops, when sold,
like the freight which must be paid upon the transportation to
market. In case the growing crops were the only assets in the
hands of an executor, which is a state of things which might
happen, it is obvious the expenses in question must be paid out
of them, or not paid at all.

I think, therefore, the expenses incurred by the defendant, as
the executor of Mr. Bowie in getting these crops ready for mar-
ket, should be paid out of the proceeds of the sales.

There is a small item in the complainants' account, for com-
missions on advances, which as it formed no part of the con-
sideration upon which the promise of the deceased was made,
cannot be regarded as a special charge upon the crops. In
respect of that item, if established, the complainants can only
be considered as general creditors, upon a footing with others.

A decree was passed by agreement in accordance with the
foregoing opinion, and allowing the complainants their costs to
be paid out of the general assets of the estate of the testator.

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

6*