A contract in relation to land may not be enforceable in equity, for the same reason which prevents most contracts about chattels from enforcement. If an agreement to give to * certain fields a peculiar cultivation, would, when broken, give rise to a claim for damages which might be expended in producing the same result, then equity would not interfere.

It is common for equity to enforce by injunction the usual covenants of leases; (w) as, that manure or crops shall be left on the land,(x) or that a meadow shall not be ploughed, (y) or gravel or any minerals dug. (z) And a contract to leave a certain amount of stock upon premises leased as alum works, was specifically enforced (a) And generally, it may be said, that where a lessee covenants that the demised premises shall be used in a particular way or for a particular purpose, equity will restrain him to that use or purpose, (b)

(v) Storer v. Great Western Railway Co. 2 Younge & C, Ch. 53. That was where a railway company had purchased land running through a gentleman's pleasure-grounds, under a contract; one of the terms of which was the construction by the company of an archway under their road, and connecting one side of the pleasure-grounds with the other; and the construction of the archway was compelled. See also Stuyvesant v. Mayor of New York, 11 Paige, 414. Where B consented to A's making a watercourse through his land, upon being paid a reasonable compensation, and no sum was agreed upon, but A made the watercourse, and enjoyed nine years' use of it, B was enjoined from obstructing it, and a reference was made to the Master to settle a proper compensation. Devonshire v. Eglin, 14 Beav. 530. And see Sanderson v. Cockermouth and Workington Railway Co. 11 id. 497.

(w) Not, indeed, by virtue of the doctrine of specific performance, but in the exercise of the special jurisdiction of the court to prevent, by injunction, the breach of a negative covenant. "Beyond all doubt," said Lord St. Leonards Ch., "where a lease is executed containing affirmative and negative covenants, this court will not attempt to enforce the execution of the affirmative covenants, either on the part of the landlord or the tenant, but will leave it entirely to a court of law to measure the damages; though, with respect to the negative covenants, if the tenant, for example, has stipulated not to cut or lop timber, or any other given act of forbearance, the court does not ask how many of the affirm-'ative covenants on either side remain to be performed under the lease, but acts at once by giving effect to the negative covenant, specifically executing it by prohibiting the commission of acts which have been stipulated not to be done." Lumley v. Wagner, 1 De G., M. & G. 617, 618. But, from this remark, one class of affirmative covenants is, it seems, to be excepted; for agreements by tenants to surrender their estates to their landlords upon a certain event may not only be enforced, but have a particular claim upon a court of equity. And Lord St. Leonards himself (when Lord Chancellor of Ireland), with respect to a case of this nature, said: "It requires a very strong case to justify the court in refusing to grant the relief sought in this case; for if there be one case in which specific performance ought to be decreed more than in another, it is where a party agrees to surrender a given estate to his landlord." Crocker v. Orpen, 3 Jones & La T. 601.

(x) Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147, 261, n.; Onslow v.- 16 id. 173.

(y) Pulteney v shelton, ubi supra; Lord Gray De Wilton v. Saxon, 6 Ves. 106. So of pasture-land. Drury v. Molina, id. 328.

(z) City of London v. Pugh, 3 Bro. P. C. 374; Thomas v. Jones, 1 Younge & C, Ch. 510.

(a) Ward v. Buckingham, cited Nut-brown v. Thornton, 10 Ves. 161.

(b) Steward v. Winters, 4 Sandf. Ch. 587. So with one who came in under,

Equity also enforces contracts in relation to personalty, when the effect of the breach cannot be known or estimated with any exactness, either because the effect will show itself only after a long time, or for any other reason, (c) As where a contract * was made for the sale of many tons of iron, to be paid for by instalments, running through many years, and it was impossible to say what the profit of the purchase would be;(d) so, if a ship-carpenter should bargain for the sale to him of ship-timber, situated with peculiar convenience to his purposes, (e)

In much the larger number of cases in which this relief is sought in equity, the sale, conveyance, or transfer of something has been promised. But equity will also enforce promises for mere personal acts, especially if they are connected with a transfer or change of property, as a promise to indorse a note which has been transferred, (f) or to renew a lease, (g)1 or to charge an annuity on a certain estate;(h) or to invest money in lands for the purpose of a particular settlement, (i) An agreement to insure may be specifically executed in equity'; and the bill may be filed after a loss has occurred, (j) And, generally, where specific performance is impracticable, the plaintiff may often have a relief in some other form, which will secure to him the substantial advantages of his contract. (k)

It may be added, that equity gives relief when a contract refers only to chattels, if circumstances give to them a value altogether beyond their price or money worth, - a pretium affectionis, or with the consent of the lessee. Howard v. Ellis, 4 Saudf. 369. And see Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & B. 349. The breach of a covenant not to burn the demised land was enjoined; notwithstanding there was a penalty of £I0 per acre provided in the lease, which the defendant was willing to pay. French v. Macale, 2 Drury & W. 269.

(c) Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 383; Ad-derley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. & S. 607

(d) Taylor v. Neville, cited 3 Atk. 384.

(e) Lord Hardwicke, Ch., Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 385.

(f) See Watkins v. Manle, 2 Jacob & W. 242.