(q) Rolfe v. Rolfe, 15 Sim. 88; Shad-well, V*. C, Kemble v. Kean, 6 Sim. 335; Lord St. Leonards, Ch. 1 De G., M. & G. 631.

(r) Rankin v. Huskisson, 4 Sim. 13. See Squire v. Campbell, 1 Mylne & C. 459; Roper v, Williams, Turner & R. 18.

(s} Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige, 351. An injunction wan granted to restrain church wardens from rinsing a bell at an early hour in the mormug, which they had agreed with the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, to refrain from doing. Martin v. Nutkin, 2 P. Wras. 266. See Soltau v. De Held, 2 Sim. (n. s.) 183, 9 Eng. L & Eq. 104.

(t) Franklyn v. Tuton, 5 Madd. 469, where a lessee, who had not complied with his covenant, that houses erected by him on the demised land should correspond in elevation with the adjoining houses, was required to alter the elevation and perform the covenant.

(u) And see Briggs v. Earl of Oxford, frequently, if not always, it is "the specific performance of any written contract," without reference to its subject-matter.

5 De G., & S. 156, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 194; and s. c. on appeal, 1 De G., M. & G. 363, 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 265.

(v) Thombleson v. Black, 1 Jur. 198. Lord Lang dale, M. R., there said, that wherever a copyright formed a part of the subject-matter in respect of which relief was sought, a court of equity had jurisdiction, even though other matters might be mixed up with it. And see Sims v.. Marryat, 17 Q. B. 281, 7 Eng. L.

& Eq. 330.

(w) Barr v. Lapsley, 1 Wheat. 151; Mechanics Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 724. See Clarke v. Flint, 22 Pick. 238, per Wilde, J.

(x) Among other cases see Phillips- v. Berger, 2 Barb. 608, 8 id 627.