It is in relation to contracts for the sale and conveyance of land (y)1 that the equity relief of specific performance is most freely admitted, most frequently practised, and most distinctly defined. (z)2 Nor does equity refuse to decree respecting land

(y) Lord Redesdale gave an admirable and very authoritative exposition of the general principles governing the interposition of a court of equity to enforce contracts for the conveyance of land, in his judgment in Lennon v Napper, 2 Sch. & L. 684. It seems to have been held, in a recent case, that a contract for the purchase of land ought not to be executed in equity, where the agreement contemplates another remedy, by providing, that, upon default of the purchaser, the land may be resold at his risk and expense. Bodine v. Glading, 21 Pa. 20. sed quaere. And it has been said, that equity will generally interfere less readily in behalf of a vendor than of a vendee; because the former can get a more complete remedy at law than the other. Lord Cranworth, L. J., Webb v. Direct London and Portsmouth Ky. Co. 1 De G., M. & G. 528, 529. But compare the opinion of Knight Bruce, L. J., in the same case. For certain contracts concerning the use of land, but not going to the creation or transfer of an estate therein, see the next preceding section.

(z) And a court of equity will sometimes entertain a bill, the object of which is to remove an obstacle lying in the way of a present application for a specific performance of a contract for the Bale of land.

Thus, where it was part of the agreement that the price should be ascertained by the valuation of certain referees, and the vendor refused to permit them to come upon the land, it was held, that the vendor should be compelled to permit the valuation, and that when the valuation was made, the vendee might file a supplemental bill for a specific performance. Morse v. Merest, 6 Madd. 26, a case which has been often approved; though the inclination of Lord Eldon's mind was, that a vendor should not be compelled to execute an arbitration bond in order that an award might be made according to agreement, fixing the price of laud purchased by the plaintiff, inasmuch as it was uncertain whether, after all, any award would ever be made. Wilke c. Davis, 3 Meriv. 507. But the court will not undertake to see to the doing of a preliminary act, the due and exact performance of which it has not the power to control. Therefore it will not decree specific performance of an agreement to name arbitrators to fix the amount of the purchase-money of land agreed to be sold. Agar v. Macklew, 2 Sim. & S. 418; Millies v. Gery, 14 Ves. 400; Blundell v. Brettargh, 17 Ves. 232. See Cheslyn v. Dalby, 2 Younge & C. Ex. 170. Yet, where an award declaring

1 The vendee of land must, on specific performance, show a demand for a conveyance prior thereto, Reed v. Hodges, 80 Ind. 304; Harless v. Petty, 84 Ind. 269; or if to be made for a certain sum, he must show payment or tender, Dovle v. Harris, 11 R. I. 539; Hays v. Carr, 83 Ind. 275; or their equivalent, Hall v Whittier, 10 R. I. 530; but not if it is alleged that the defendant has expressly repudiated the contract, and waived a tender by notice, Martin v. Merritt. 57 Ind. 34. See Selleck v. Tallman, 87 N. Y. 106. The seller cannot enforce specific performance of a land contract, unless he puts or offers to put the purchaser in possession. McHugh v. Wells, 39 Mich. 175. - K.

2 Specific performance of a contract for the sale of an interest in land will be made, under proper circumstances, even when made between tenants in common, both of whom are in possession. Littlefield tvLittlefield, 51 Wis. 23. - K.

* in a foreign country, provided the parties are resident within their jurisdiction, and there is nothing which must prevent the court from compelling them to execute their agreement, (a) But in decreeing a specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of lands, courts always require the complainant to do complete justice, upon the broadest principles of equity, and will not be satisfied with a literal performance of the agreement by him. (b)

The first question which presents itself in reference to contracts for the conveyance of land, is in relation to the title; for defect of title is a very common defence. It is a general rule, that any party who objects to title, and asks to have inquiry made as to its sufficiency, may have that inquiry, (c) unless the * court can see that the objections are clearly frivolous, or are intended only to delay and embarrass the plaintiff, (d) the price has been actually given, a court of equity will enforce compliance with it. "That a bill," said Lord Eldon, Wood v. Griffith, 1 Swanst. 54, "will lie for the specific performance of an award, is clear, because the award supposes an agreement between the parties, and contains no more than the terms of that agreement, ascertained by a third person; and then the bill calls only for a specific performance of an agreement in another shape." See also Bouck v. Wilber, 4 Johns. Ch. 405; Penniman v. Rodman, 13 Met. 382; Jones v. Boston Mill Corporation, 4 Pick. 507. And after an agreement to sell, at a price to be fixed by arbitration, has been executed to the extent of appointing the arbitrators, it is not competent to either party at his pleasure entirely to undo what has been done; for a revocation of the authority of the appraisers or arbitrators, though good at law, may be bad in equity, in which case the arbitrators may go on in disregard of such revocation, and a court of equity will respect their award, and perhaps enforce it. Lord Eldon, Ch., Harcourt v. Ramsbottom, 1 Jacob & W. 303 508; Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 12, 41; Belchier v. Reynolds, 2 Ken yon, pt. 2, 87, where a specific performance was decreed according to a valuation made after the death of the vendor. See also Pope v. Duncannon, 9 Sim. 177; Cheslyn v. Dalby, 2 Youngs & C, Ex. 197; Dims-dale v. Robertson, 7 Irish Eq. 554, 2 Jones & La T. 58. If an award appear to have been made upon a ground which is not sustainable, or if the arbitrators have misconducted themselves in making it, specific performance will not be decreed. Chichester v. M'Intire, 4 Bligh (N. S.), 78.