Specialty

A writing sealed and deliv- it is immaterial whether the subject relate ered, containing some agreement or promise. to real or personal estate; 2 Story, Eq. § Taylor v. Glaser, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 503; 1 P. 717; Pom. Contr. 28; 1 S. & S. 607; 1 P. Wins. 130. A writing sealed and delivered, Wms. 570; Porter v. Water Co., 84 Me. 195, which is given as a security for the payment 24 Atl. 814. But the rule is confined to casof a debt, in which such debt is particularly es where courts of law cannot give an adespecified. Bac. Abr. Obligation (A). quate remedy; Finley v. Aiken, 1 Grant Cas. Although in the body of the writing it is (Pa.) 83; Justices of Inferior Court of Doughnot said that the parties have set their hands erty Co. v. Croft, 18 Ga. 473; 2 Story, Eq. and seals, yet if the instrument be really Jur. § 718; if there is an adequate legal remsealed it is a specialty, and if it be not seal- edy, the court will refuse specific performed it is not a specialty, although the parties ance, unless under all the circumstances it in the body of the writing make mention of a would be inequitable and unjust to do so; seal; Taylor v. Glaser, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 504; Simon v. Wildt, 84 Ky. 157; Knott v. Mfg. 2 Co. 5 a.

Co., 30 W. Va. 790, 5 S. E. 266.

A specialty was the contract itself. If it Specific performance Is not of absolute principles of equity and with reference to the facts of the particular case, and not arbitrarily or capriciously; Wesley v. Eells, 177 U. S. 370, 20 Sup. Ct. 661, 44 L. Ed. 810; Hennessy v. Woolworth, 128 U. S. 438, 9 Sup. Ct. 109, 32 L. Ed. 500; Barrett v. Forney, 82 Va. 269; Ramsay v. Gheen, 99 N. C. 215, 6 S. E. 75; King v. Gsantner, 23 Neb. 795, 37 N. W. 654; it rests in judicial discretion, based upon settled principles of equity, and with reference to the particular facts. If based on part performance, the acts done must be such that damages would not be adequate relief; Haffner v. Dobrinski, 215 U. S. 446, 30 Sup. Ct. 172, 54 L. Ed. 277. A vendor of real estate may- either sue at law for the purchase-money or resort to equity for specific performance; Raymond v. Land & Water Co., 53 Fed. 883, 4 C. C. A. 89, 10 U. S. App. 601. An action at law for breach of contract to convey real estate is not an adequate remedy, and the existence of the right to it does not forbid the maintenance of a suit for specific performance; Wilhite v. Skelton, 149 Fed. 67, 78 C. C. A. 635; nor is it an adequate remedy for a failure to execute a trust; Rogers v. Mining Co., 154 Fed. 606, 83 C. C. A. 380. Equity will take jurisdiction for specific performance to avoid multiplicity of suits; Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 141 Fed. 785, 73