(l) Adderley v. Dixon, 1 Simons & S. 607. The Vice-Chancellor's decree seems to have proceeded on the ground of the uncertainty of the dividends which might become payable from the estate of the bankrupt. " Damages at law," he said, "cannot accurately represent the value of the future dividends; and to compel this purchaser to take such damages, would be to compel him to sell these dividends at a conjectural price. It is true that the present bill is not filed by the purchaser, but by the vendor, who seeks, not the uncertain dividends, but the certain sum to be paid for them. It has, however, been settled, by repeated decision, that the remedy in equity must be mutual; and that, where a bill will He for the purchaser, it will also lie for the vendor/' 1 Simons & S. 612.

(m) Lyde v. Mynn, 1 Mylne & K. 683. "That the claim to the annuity," said Lord Brougham, Ch., "is barred by the bankrupt act, cannot be denied; for the annuity was an interest of which the value was capable of calculation, and for which proof might have been made under the commission. But the covenant to secure that annuity gave the annuitant a right which could not in any way be made the subject either of calculation or proof; and it seems impossible to understand how such a rignt could be barred." 1 Mylne & K. 692. See Thompson v. Cohen, L. R. 7 Q. B. 527; Cole v. Kernot, id. 534, note.

(n) Kilmorey v. Thackeray, cited Er-rington v. Aynesley, 2 Bro. Ch. 343. And see 2 Bro. Ch. 65.

(o) Ball v. Coggs, 1 Bro. P. C. 296.

(p) Pritchard v Ovey, 1 Jacob & W. 396. And see Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 Mylne & C. 554.

(q) Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189. Et vide infra.

1 So a contract for the sale of a debt, Cutting v. Dana, 25 N. J. Eq. 265. Or to issue a policy of insurance. Haden v. Farmers', etc. Assoc. 80 Va. 683. Even after the destruction of the property, - and the company cannot defend by showing a failure to perform certain conditions, which the policy, if issued, would have contained. Baile v. St. Joseph Ins. Co. 73 Mo. 371. So a contract to furnish a patented article and assign letters patent. Adams v. Messinger, 147 Mass. 185. Or to sell personal property used in connection with a manufacturing plant, which is also to be transferred. Singer v. Carpenter, 125 111. 117. Or to accept and pay for the stock in trade of a shop in part, and execute a mortgage for the balance of the price. Rothholz .v Schwartz, 46 N. J Eq. 477. Or an agreement by a benefit society to levy an assessment, Covenant, etc. Assoc, v. Sears, 114 111. 108; or to support another, Watson p. Smith, 7 Ore. 448. Or an agreement to accept the draft of a third person, where property was sold and delivered on the faith of it. Saulsbury v. Blandys, 60 Ga. 646.

In regard to the sale of stock, as it is called, meaning very generally in the English cases only government stocks, but with us covering shares in companies generally, there is some uncertainty. It has been understood to be the prevailing rule in England, that such bargains are not to be enforced by specific performance; on the ground that a certain quantity of stock is worth as much, and no more, as any other equal quantity of stock; and if the defendant be sued at law and the plaintiff recover damages, the value of the stock will be the measure of the damages, and the plaintiff may use the money so recovered in buying the stock, (r) There are, nevertheless, many cases in England, in which bargains for the sale and transfer of stock have been enforced. (s) The question has not arisen in this country * so frequently or so directly as to enable us to lay down what may be called an American rule of law in relation to it. Perhaps, however, from the wider meaning of the word stock among us, and the greater complexisy of the questions which occur in relation to the sale of it, we might expect a wider relaxation of the rule than in England, even if the rule itself be adopted, (t)1

We are quite satisfied that the rule of England, in relation to the sale of stocks, does not rest, even there, on the difference between contracts about land and those about personalty, although this is sometimes referred to in their cases. The true reason is that above mentioned. And the exceptions to the rule do, for the most part, illustrate this reason; because, where a contract for the sale of stock is enforced, there is always some peculiar fact or agreement tending to show that it is not a mere matter of price.

(r) Cud v. Rutter, 1 P. Wms. 570. Lord Hardwickc, Ch., Buxton v. Lister, S Atk. 383, 384. Lord Eldon, Ch., Nut-brown v. Thornton, 10 Ves. 161. Lord Erskine, Ch., Mason v. Armitage, 13 Ves. 37.

(s) An agreement for sale of government stock and transfer of certificates was executed in equity. Doloret v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. & S. 590. And it has been held, that an agreement for the transfer of railway shares may be enforced. Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189, 199, where Shadwell, V. C, distinguished between three per cents, or other stock of that kind (which could always be had by any persons choosing to apply for it in the market), and railway shares of a particular description, which are limited in number, and not always to be found in the market. A vendor of railway shares, who has been paid the purchase-money, may enforce specific performance of the contract, in order that the purchaser, by accepting a legal transfer, may be fixed with the liability for calls, and he himself be exonerated. Shaw v. Fisher, 2 De G. & S 310; Wynne v. Price, id. 310. Agreement between partners, upon a dissolution of the firm, that one of them should have the exclusive property of certain partnership books, was held proper for specific performance. Lingen v. Simpson, 1 Sim. & S. 600.

(t) See Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1 Pet. 305.

1 As to when a railroad corporation may be compelled to pay dividends on preferred stock, see Boardman v. Lake Shore, Ac. R. Co. 84 N. Y. 157. - K.