Partly because a specific piece of land is in its nature different from every other piece, and presumably partly because of the overshadowing social and economic importance of land when the doctrines of equity were developed, a contract to convey land is always specifically enforceable by the purchaser whatever may be the form of contract, whether an ordinary contract to purchase, or an agreement to exchange lands,8 to re-convey on the mortgagor finding a purchaser,9 to partition land held in common, or to make a conveyance by way of compromise.10 A contract to convey any interest in land is as fully enforceable as a contract to convey a fee." On the other hand, which a court of equity can give, it is not in all cases sufficient that there be a remedy at law. The remedy must be plain and adequate, and as certain, prompt, complete and efficient to attain the ends of justice ud its prompt administration as the remedy in equity." Dailey v. (Sty of New York, 170 N. Y. App. Div. 267, 274, 166 N. Y. S. 124. citing Texas Co. v. Central Fue, 00 Co., 194 Fed. 1, 114 C. C. A. 21, and cases cited; Walla Walla v. Walla Walk Water Co., 172 U. S. 1, 43 L. Ed. 341, 19 Sup. Ct. 77; Tyler v. Swage, 143 TJ. S. 79, 36 L. Ed. 82, 12 Sup. Ct. 340; Kilboum v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 605, 32 L. Ed. 1006, 9 Sup. Ct. 694; Erie Railroad Co. v. City of Buffalo, 180 N. Y. 192, 73 N. E. 26.

6 See infra, Sec.1425.

7 Jefferys v. Jefferys, Cr. & Ph. 138; Crandall v. Willig, 166 HI. 233, 46 N. E. 755. See also supra, Sec. 217.

8 Duron v. Anderson, 262 Fed. 694, 164 C. C. A. 534; Bowman v. Cork, 106 Mich, 106 Mich. 163, 63 N. W. 998.

9 Porter v. Farmers' Savings Bank, 143 Iowa, 629, 120 N. W. 633.

10 Fortner v. Wiggins, 121 Ga. 26, 48 S. E. 694; Sumner v. Early, 134 N. C. 233, 46 S. E. 492.

11 Lever v. Koefflr, [1901] 1 Ch.

L contracts for the sale of personal property are not generally enforced specifically, and a clear case of the inadequacy of damages is necessary in order to obtain equitable relief.12 Such a case is established, where a chattel which is the subject of the contract is unique, or not purchasable in the market.13 The modern disposition is to be less technical in the application of this principle and where a special need on the part of the plaintiff, and at least a temporary monopoly on the part of the defendant justify its application, the remedy is allowed for breach of contracts for the sale of personal property for which damages might otherwise be adequate.14 Contracts to sell ships,15

643 (contract to lease); Boarders v. Murphy, 78 11I. 81 (contract by owner of an equitable interest to transfer an interest); Coy v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 116 la. 568, 90 N. W. 344 (contract to gyre right of way); Read Drug & Chemical Co. v. Nattans, 130 Md. 466, 100 Atl. 736 (contract to renew a lease); Gorder v. Pankonin, 83 Neb. 204, 119 N. W. 449, 131 Am. St. Rep. 629 (contract to renew a lease); St. Regis Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., 173 N. V. 149, 66 N. . 967 (contract to sell standing timber). 12 Buxton v. Lister, 3 Ark. 383; Fothergill v. Rowland, L. R. 17 Eq. 132; Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 217 U. S. 602, 64 L. Ed. 869, 30 Sup. Ct. 698; Kane v. Luckman, 131 Fed. 609; A. G. Lehman Co. v. Island City Pickle Co., 208 Fed. 1014; Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Haagenson, 209 Fed. 278; Consolidated Fuel Co. v. St. Louis Ac. R., 260 Fed. 396,162 C. C. A. 466; Southern Iron Ac. Co. v. Vaughan (Ala. 1919), 78 So. 212; Block v. Shaw, 78 Ark. 611, 96 S. W. 806; Elliott v. Jones (Del. Ch.), 101 Atl. 872; Carolee v. Handelis, 103 Qa. 299, 29 S. E. 936; Neal v. Parker, 96 Md. 264, 67 Atl. 213; Cole v. Cole Realty Co., 169 Mich. 347, 135, 135 N. W. 329; Meehan v. Owens, 196 Pa. 69, 46 Atl. 263; Glassbrenner v. Groulik, 110 Wis. 402, 86 N. W. 962.

13 Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vernon Ch. 273 (an ancient horn which was an heirloom); Somerset v. Cookson, 2 Eq. Gas. Abr. 164, 3 Peere Wms. 300 (a stiver altar piece); Fella v. Bead, 3 Ves. 70 (silver tobacco box); Low-ther v. Lowther, 13 Ves. 05 (a painting by Titian); Falcke v. Gray, 4 Drew, 661 (two china jars); Elliott v. Jones (Del. Ck), 101 Atl 872 (a race horse); Sloane v. Clauss, 64 Ohio St 125, 50 N. E. 884 (family hehiooms); Beasley v. Allyn, 15 Phila. 97 (a bowl belonging to a •college society); Skrine v. Walker, 3 Rich. Eq. 262 (with which cf. Mallery 9. Dudley, 4 Ga. 66; Summers v. Bean, 13 Gratt. 404, all of which relate to slaves).

14 Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 383; Equitable Gaslight Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Go., 63 Md. 286; Gloucester Isinglass Go. v. Russia Cement Go., 154 Mass. 92, 27 N. E. 1005, 12 L. R. A. 563, 26 Am. St. Rep. 214; Curtice Bros. Co. v. Catts, 72 N. J. Eq. 831, 66 Atl. 935; Rector of St. David's Parish v. Wood, 24 Or. 396, 34 Pac 18, 41 Am. St. Rep. 860; Strause v. Berger, 220 Pa. St. 367, 69 Atl. 818; Farwell v. Walbridge, 6 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 634; cf. Southern Iron Ac. Go. v. Vaughan, (Ala. 1918), 78 So. 212, L. R. A. 1918 E. 594.

15 Hart v. Herwig, L. R. 8 Ch. 860; Hurd v. Groch (N. J. Eq.), 51 Atl. 278; to transfer documents of any kind,16 as well as the intangible right of the owner of a patent or invention!17 or copyright,18 or annuity19 are also specifically enforced. Many decisions relate to contracts for the sale of stock. Contracts for the sale of government bonds (called stock in England) it is conceded will not be specifically enforced since they are readily bought and sold on the market; 20 and for the same reason American courts deny specific performance to one who has contracted to purchase stock of a kind which can easily be bought in the market,21 though allowing the remedy if the stock is thus not readily obtainable in the market.22 Furthermore, where the

Meaier 0. Donald, 98 N. Y. Misc. 684,166 N. Y. 8. 50.

16 Jackson v. Butler, 2 Atk. 906 (deeds); Gibson 0. Ingo, 6 Hare, 112 (certificate of ship's registration); Doloret v. Rothschild, 1 Simon & S. 560 (certificate of title to government bond); CDonnell 0. Chamber-lin, 36 CoL 395, 91 Pac. 30 (contract); McMullen 0. Vansant, 73 11I. 190 (promissory note); Pattison 0. Skill-man, 34 N. J. Eq. 344 (letters important as evidence); Dock v.Dock, 180 Pa. 14, 36 AtL 411 (letters).

17 Printing, etc.. Co. v. Sampson, L R. 19 Eq. 462; Pressed Steel Oar Go. 0. Hansen, 128 Fed. 444, 137 Fed. 403, 71 C. C. A. 207; Fairchild 0. Dement, 164 Fed. 200; Wege 0. Safe Cabinet Co., 249 Fed. 696,161 C. C. A. 606; Blackmer 0. Stone, 51 Ark. 489, 11 8. W. 693; Whitney 0. Burr, 115 111289; Telegraphone Corp. v. Canadian Telegraphone Co., 103 Me. 444, 69 Atl. 767; Adams 0. Messinger, 147 Mass. 185, 17 N. E. 401, 9 Am. St Rep. 679; Detroit Lubricator Co. v. Lavigne, 151 Mich. 650, 115 N. W. 068; Spears 0. Willis, 151 N. Y. 443, 46 N. R 849; Hepworth 0. Henahail, 153 Pa. 502, 25 AtL 1103; McRae 0. Smart, 120 Tenn. 413, 114 S. W. 729; VaUey Iron Manfg. Co. v. Goodrick, 103 Wis. 436, 78 N. W. 1096.

18 Thombleson 0. Black, 1 Jut. 196.

19 Withy v. Cottle, 1 Sim. & St 174.

20 Cod 0. Butter, 1 Peere. Wil. 670; Nutbrown 0. Thornton, 10 Ves. 159, 161; Bolhns Investment Co. 0. Qeorge, 48 Fed. 776; Frue v. Houghton, 6 Colo. 318, 320; Paddock 0. Davenport, 107 N. C. 710, 717,12 S. E. 464; Goodwin's App., 117 Pa. 514, 534, 12 AtL 736.

21 Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co., 168 U. S. 471, 488, 42 L. Ed. 547, 18 Sup. Ct. 114; Berimer 0. Grisoom-Spenoer Co., 161 Fed. 438; Eckley v. Daniel, 193 Fed. 279; Graham 0. Herlong, 50 Fla. 521, 39 So. Ill; Ryan 0. MoLane, 91 Md. 175, 46 AtL 340, 80 Am. St. Rep. 438; Tolee v. Duplex Power Co., 202 Mioh. 224, 168 N. W. 405; Hark 0. Brenning, 131 N. Y. App, Div. 742, 116 N. Y. S. 51; Kennedy 0. Thompson, 97 N. Y. App. Divt 296, 89 N. Y. S. 963; Rawll 0. Baker Vawter Co., 187 N. Y. App. D. 330, 176 N. Y. S. 180; Dots 0. Stephenson, 61 Or. 596, 05 Pac. 803; Avery 0. Ryan, 74 Wis. 591, 43 N. W. 317.

22 Hyerv0. Richmond Traction Co., 168 U. S. 471, 488, 42 L. Ed. 547, 18 Sup. Ct 114; Newton 0. Wooley, 105 Fed. 541; Altoona, etc., Co. 0. Kittann-ing, etc., Co., 126 Fed. 569; Mutual Oil Co. 0. Hills, 248 Fed. 257,160 C. C. A. 335; Fleishman 0. Woods, 135 CaL 256, 67 Pac. 276; Wait 0. Kern River Min., etc., Co., 157 CaL 161, 106 Pac. 98; GfflaUan 0. GOfaUan, 168 CaL 23, plaintiff desires the stock contracted for in order to obtain control of a corporation; specific performance has been allowed,23 unless the court deems the plaintiff's desire for control opposed to public policy.24 In England, although shares of the stock in question may be obtainable on the market, specific performance nevertheless is allowed of a contract to buy them.25 Where the plaintiff has agreed to resell for a stated price the subject-matter of his contract with the defendant, damages will be held to afford him adequate relief though the contract would otherwise have been specifically enforced.26 Probably the fu-

141 Pac. 623, Ann. Cas. 1915 D. 784; Ames v. Witbeck, 179 111. 468, 63 N. E. 969; Hills v. McMunn, 232 HI. 488, 83 N. E. 963; Schmidt v. Pritchard, 136 la. 240, 112 N. W. 801; New England Trust Co. v. Abbott, 162 Mass. 148, 38 N. E. 432, 27 L. R. A. 271; Cole v. Cole Realty Co., 169 Mich. 347, 135 N. W. 329; Selover v. Isle Harbor Land Co., 91 Minn. 461, 98 N. W. 344; First Nat. Bank v. Corporation Securities Co., 128 Minn. 341, 160 N. W. 1084; Nason v. Barrett, 140 Minn. 366, 168 N. W. 681; Dennison v. Keasby, 200 Mo. 408, 98 S. W. 546; Baum-hoff v. St. Louis, etc., R., 205 Mo. 248, 104 S. W. 5, 120 Am. St. Rep. 746; Wood v. Kansas City, etc., Tel. Co., 233 Mo. 537, 123 S. W. 6; Turley v. Thomas, 31 Nev. 181, 101 Pac. 568, 135 Am. St. Rep. 667; Safford v. Barber, 74 N. J. Eq. 352, 70 Atl. 371; Butler v. Wright, 186 N. Y. 259, 78 N. K 1002; Waddle v. Cabana, 220 N. Y. 18, 114 N. E. 1054; Deits v. Stephenson, 51 Oreg. 596, 95 Pac. 803; Northern Central R. Co. v. Walworth, 193 Pa. 207, 44 Atl. 263, 74 Am. St. Rep. 683; Manton v. Ray, 18 R. I. 672, 29 Atl. 998, 49 Am. St. Rep. 811; Amsler v. Cavitt (Tex. Civ. App.), 210 S. W. 766; Hogg v. McGriffin, 67 W. Va. 456, 68 S. E. 41, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 491; Morgan v. Bartlett, 75 W. Va. 293, 83 S. E.

1001, 1915 D. L. R. A. 300. But see Barton v. DeWolf, 106 111. 195.

23 Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86, 3 C. C. A. 443; Nason v. Barrett, 140 Minn. 366, 168 N. W. 581; Cape Girardeau-Jackson R. Co. v. Light & Development Co. (Mo.), 210 S. W. 361; Rumsey v. New York, etc., Co., 203 Pa. 579, 63 Atl. 495; Sherman v. Herr, 220 Pa. 420, 69 Atl. 899; Bum-gardner v. Leavitt, 35 W. Ya. 194, 13 S. E. 67, 12 L. R. A. 776; Lathrop v. Columbia Collieries Co., 70 W. Va. 58, 73 S. E. 299. See also Greenwell v. Porter, [1902] 1 Ch. 530; Smith v. San Francisco Ac. R., 115 Cal. 584, 47 Pac. 582, 35 L. R. A. 309, 56 Am. St. 119.

24 An attempt to control a public service corporation was held unenforceable in equity on this ground in Ryan v. McLane, 91 Md. 175, 46 Atl. 340, 60 L. R. A. 501, 80 Am. St. Rep. 438; Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa. 434, 36 Am. Rep. 671, as was an attempt to obtain control of a bank in Gleason v. Earles, 78 Wash. 491, 139 Pac. 213, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 785. See also Cowles v. Miller, 74 Conn. 287, 50 Atl. 728; McLaughlin v. Leon-hard, 113 Md. 261, 77 Atl. 647; Fremont v. Stone, 42 Barb. 169.

25 Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189.

26 Marthinson v. King, 150 Fed. 48, 82 C. C. A. 360. See also Southern Iron etc. Co. v. Vaughan (Ala.), ture tendency of courts will be towards a freer allowance of the remedy in the case of contracts to sell personalty than might be inferred from the earlier precedents.27

*