(m) See Wood v. Griffith, 1 Swanst. 54,55. An agreement containing a stipulation inadvertently inserted was not enforced. Watson v. Marston, 4 De G.t M. & G. 230, 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 167. But a court of equity will not refuse a specific performance, because the contract was an improvident one on the part of the defendant. Sullivan v. Jacob, I Mol-loy, 472. And on an application for a specific performance, resisted on the ground that it was a case of hardship, Lord Eld on held that, unless hardship arises to a degree of inconvenience so great that the court can judicially say such could not be the meaning of the parties, it cannot influence the decision. Prebble v. Bog hurst, 1 Swanst. 329. Compare Kimberley v. Jennings, 6 Sim. 344, 352.

(n) Shaw v. Thackrav, 1 Smale & G. 537, 23 Eng. L. & Eq. 18; Lightfoot v. Heron, 3 Yonnge & C., Ex. 586: Rein-icker v. Smith, 2 Harris & J. 423. But total drunkenness, or a degree of intoxication depriving the party of the use of his reason, avoids any express contract, both at law and in equity. Gore v. Gibson, 13 M. & W. 623. Sir William Grant, M. R., Cooke v. Clavworth, 18 Ves. 16; Sir Edward Sugden, L. C, Nagle v. Baylor, 3 Drury & W. 65; Stuart, V. C, 1 Smale & G. 539; Barrett v. Buxton, 2 Aikens, 167; Prentice v. Achorn, 2 Paige, 30; Wigglesworth v. Steers, 1 Hen. & M. 70 See Clark v. Caldwell, 6 Watts, 139, a decision under a statute. Duncan v. M'Cullough, 4 S. & R. 483. And wherever a party has entered into a con-tract in a state of intoxication, a court of equity is averse to enforcing it, although the plaintiff did not make him drunk, and took no unfair advantage of his situation; in such cases the court, generally speaking, does not act on either side; it will not require the sober party to give up his contract, as it would do if he had been guilty of unfair practice; nor will it assist the other to get rid of the legal obligation of his agreement, merely because he was intoxicated when he assumed it. Cooke v. Clayworth, 18 Ves 15; Nagle v. Baylor, 3 Drury & W. 64, I Sugd. V. & P. ch. 4, § 3, pl. 34. Lord Langdale, M. R. Malins v. Freeman, 2 Keen, 34. It seems that a family compromise reasonable in its terms (being one of a class of agreements particularly favored in equity) may be enforced against a party who was drunk at the time he entered into it. Lord Eldon, Ch., Stockley v. Stockley, 1 Ves. & B. 31. Upon the subject of intoxication, see also Say v. Bar wick, 1 Ves & B. 195; Rutherford v. Ruff, 4 Desaus. 350. And see ante, vol. i. p. * 384.

(o) Davis v. Hone. 2 Sch. & L. 347; Lennon v. Napper, 2 Sch. & L. 684.

(p) After a vendee had brought an

Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Schoeneman, 90 111. 258. See Williams v. Williams, 50 Wis. 311; Whitman v. Wene, 1 Tenn. Ch. 634. A grant, on valuable consideration, of the right perpetually, as the river-bank caves, to lay off new landings, to the exclusion of all others, on the water-front of a large plantation, near a growing town, is not so unfair that equity will refuse to decree its specific performance. Carson v. Percy, 57 Miss. 97. - K.

A court of equity will never enforce performance of a contract which is illegal, or against the policy of the law. (q)1 But action, and recovered judgment against the administrator of the vendor for the breach of the contract in not making the conveyance at the day stipulated, which fell after the death of the vendor, it was held, that it was no longer competent to the administrator to maintain a bill against a purchaser and the heirs for the specific performance of the contract. Moore v, Randolph, 6 Leigh, 175.

(q) Strange v. Brennan, 15 Sim. 346; Abbott v. Stratten, 3 Jones & La T. 616; St. John v. Benedict, 6 Johns. Ch. 111, an agreement for the purpose of defrauding creditors. See Webb v. Direct London and Portsmouth Railway Co., 1 De G., M. & G. 525; with which, however, compare Hawkes v. Eastern Counties Railway Co. 1 De G., M. & G. 757-760. See Daly v. Duggan, 1 Irish Eq. 311. See Johnson v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Co., 3 De G* M. & G. 914, - a case of a contract between a railway company and private persons, by which the latter were to run the trains, and perform the operations of the railway generally, for a term of years. Among the features which were questioned by Knight Bruce, L. J., was a stipulation that the contractor should not be liable for injuries to passengers beyond a specified sum for each death or other injury occurring on the road. If the agreement as stated in the pleadings, do not appear illegal, but circumstances come out in the evidence, tending to show that it is in fact tainted with illegality, it is proper for the court to direct an inquiry into the matter Par-ken v, Whitby, Turner & R. 366. It seems that an agreement by A, that all the property of which he should be possessed at the time of his death should be held by his heirs and personal representatives in trust for the use of B, ought not to be specifically executed; for, if a party could so contract for a certain sum as to deprive himself of the possibility of realizing property over which he can have a disposing power by will, the effect would be to destroy one of the strongest motives for bettering his condition in life. Hill v. Gomme, 5 Mylne & C. 250, 253. See Mundorff v. Kilbourn, 4 Md. 459. With respect to an agreement between partners, that one on retiring from the business shall permit the other to carry on business in his name, see Thorn bury v. Bevill, I Younge & C, Ch. 554, 565. It appears that an agreement for the sale and purchase of the business of an attorney, whose name is to be continued to be held out as engaged in it, is not such a contract as a court of equity ought to execute. Bozon v. Farlow, 1 Meriv. 459. As to agreements in restraint of trade, see Bryson v. Whitehead, 1 Sim. & S. 74. As to a private arrangement for withdrawing opposition to a bill in Parliament, see Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Co. v. London and North-western Railway Co. 2 Macn. & G. 324. Specific performance may be decreed of articles of separation between husband and wife. Wilson v. Wilson, 1 H L Cas, 638, 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 29 See further, with respect to arrangements altering the relation which the law establishes between husband and wife, Jodrell v. Jodrell, 2 Beav. 45; Wallingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 Harris & J. 489. As to the distinction given for the plaintiff "that a mandamus do issue; and it shall be lawful for the court in which such judgment is given, if it shall see fit, besides issuing execution in the ordinary way for costs and damages, also to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus to the defendant, commanding him forthwith to perform the duty to be enforced.91 And this writ will have the same force as a peremptory writ of mandamus issued out of the Court of Queen's Bench, and, in case of disobedience, may be enforced by attachment Of the action of "injunction," the intention is to enable a plaintiff "to prevent the repetition or continuance of such breach of contract, or other injury, or the committal ,of any breach of contract or injury of like kind arising out of the same contract, in relation to the same property or right" Here, too, damages may also be given, and proper writs issued, analogous to those above mentioned in the action of mandamus.