(i) See 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 1, § 5, note (o). Lord Chief Justice Raymond, in Betesworth v. Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, Sel. Ch. Ca. 69, said: " I take this to be a certain rule of equity, that a specific performance shall never be compelled for the not doing of which the law would not give damages." But the decree in this case was reversed in the House of Lords.

(j) Mitf. PL by Jerem. 118, n.; 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 3, § 2, note (c).

(k) Cannel v. Buckle, 2 P. Wins. 243.

{kk) Therefore, where A, in purchasing certain land in fee-simple, covenanted to

1 Blanchard v. Detroit, etc. R. Co. 31 Mich. 43, refused specific performance of an agreement by a railroad to erect and maintain a station on certain granted premises, to stop a train each way at such station every day when trains were run, and to take freight and passengers regularly at that place. - K.

2 It has been held in England that equity will not grant a mandatory injunction in such cases, but will only afford relief where it can do so by restraining violation of negative covenants. Haywood v. Brunswick etc. Soc. 8 Q. B. D. 403; London, etc. Ry, Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. D.562. And see Brewer v. Marshall, 19 N. J. Eq. 537. This limitation is criticised in Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. Vol. III. § 1295, n. If an agreement be intended not merely for the benefit of the promisee personally, but for the benefit of adjoining land, as where the same restriction is imposed on a number of lots divided up and sold under a general plan, - in such a case not only is the assignee of the promisor bound if he takes with notice (or, in this country, if the deed containing the promise is recorded), but the assignee of the promisee may enforce the restriction; and contract may be granted at the instance of a party who is not solely interested in the fulfilment of it (n)

* The general rule is, that equity will not make or enforce a decree for specific performance, for one who was not a party nor privy to a contract (kl) But it is possible for a plaintiff to have an interest capable of supporting a bill praying specific performance, although he was not a party to the contract, (l) or although he did not disclose his true character at the time of the contract (m) And a specific performance of an entire keep it in an open state, uncovered with any buildings, and in proper repair as a pleasure-ground for the benefit of the occupiers of houses in the neighborhood, it was held, that the vendor might have an injunction against a purchaser from A, with notice of the covenant, to prevent him from building upon the land; and that the question, whether the covenant ran with the land, did not affect the right to the remedy in equity. Tulk v. Mox-hay, 1 Hall & T. 105, 2 Phillips, 774; 8. c. before the Master of the Rolls, 11 Beav. 571; Smoot v. Rea, 19 Md. 398. And a court of equity will not always refuse to grant this remedy, though the plaintiff had a complete remedy at law which he has lost oy his own neglect. Lord Redesdale, Lennon v. Napper, 2 Sch. & L. 684. With respect to the enforcement of an agreement as against creditors of one of the parties, and the consideration that is necessary in such cases, see Alexander v. Ghiselin, 5 Gill, 138. See also, Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190, as to equity following the law, in applying the statutes of limitation, where it is sought to enforce a stale claim as an implied trust.

[kl) Beardsley Scythe Co. v. Foster, 36 N. Y. 561.

(l) Hook v. Kinnear, 3 Swanst 417, n. See Hill v. Gomme, 5 Mvlne & C. 250, 1 Beav. 540; Colyear v. Countess of Mul-grave, 2 Keen, 81, 98; Vernon r. Vernon, 2 P. Wms. 594, 4 Bro P C. 26. By an agreement between A and B, the latter was to build a house for the former for a stipulated price; and A dying, his son and heir brought his bill against the widow and administratrix to compel her specifically to perform the agreement, and it was decreed accordingly. Holt v. Holt, 2 Vera. 322; and see Champion v.

Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 402. Marriage contracts differ from others in this, that the issue of the marriage are purchasers under both father and mother; and therefore a marriage settlement cannot be rescinded, even by the consent of all the parties to it, if the interests of the children would be thereby prejudiced. Harvey v. Ashley, 3 Atk. 610.

(m) Where an agreement for a purchase of land is made by an agent, as if he were purchasing for himself; the principal may enforce specific performance of the contract; and it is no objection that his name was withheld from the vendor at the time it was entered into, unless some inequitable advantage was taken of the vendor, other than any supposed to be inferrible from the mere non-disclosure of the agency, and of the plaintiff's name as purchaser. Nelthorpe v. Holgate, 1 Collyer, 203. And if a vendor falsely represented that he was agent in the transaction for a third party, that is no objection to his obtaining specific performance of the contract, unless it be shown that the deception in some way operated to the defendant's prejudice. Fellowes v. Lord Gwydyr, 1 Rubs. & M. 83, 1 Sim. 63; s. c. before the V. C. If, however, the defendant was unfairly induced to enter into a contract which he would not have made if he had known what party he was really dealing with, a specific performance will not be decreed. Phillips v. The Duke of Bucks, 1 Vern. 227; Popham r. Eyre, Lofft, 786. Where A and B were the owners of a tract of land, and A, having authority from B, contracted with C to sell him the land, by a written agreement containing no reference to B, and not purporting on its face to bind any person as vendor but A; on a bill filed by A and B, praying a specific performance, McLean, this even though the promise was made subsequently to the conveyance to the plaintiff, if the promise was intended in part, at least, for the benefit of the plaintiff's land. Nottingham Brick Works v. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. 778; Collins v. Castle, 36 Ch. D. 243; Spicer e. Martin, 14 App. Cas. 12; Norcroes v. James, 140 Mass. 188; Pay son v. Burn-ham, 141 Mass. 547; Attorney-Gen. v. Algonquin Club, 153 Mass. 447; Trustees v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 440; Wetmore v. Bruce, 118 N. Y. 319. See also 5 Harv. Law. Rev. 274.