Not only because of inherent difficulties in granting the relief, but often also because the agreement was regarded in any court as opposed to public policy,47 equity will neither enforce an agreement to appoint an arbitrator or valuer, nor compel such a person to act,48 unless the stipulation for arbitration or valuation is subordinate to the main purpose of the contract and is of slight importance as compared with the remainder of it, and the failure to perform the contract was owing to the defendant's fault. In such a case the court may enforce that portion of the contract to which the stipulation for arbitration or valuation is inapplicable or may itself determine by a master the matter which the contract provided should be submitted to arbitration or valuation.49 An award actually made

47 See infra, Sec.1720.

48 Vickers v. Vickers, L. R. 4 Eq.

529; Agar 0. Macklew, 2 Sim. & Stew.

418; Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 815;

Mflnes 0. Gery, 14 Ves. 400; Gourlay v Somerset, 19 Ves. 420; Tobey

9. County of Bristol, 3 Story, 800;

Oregon, etc., Bank v. American Mtge.

Co., 35 Fed 22; Caldwell v. Caldwell,

157 Ala. 119, 47 So. 268; Kennedy v. Monarch Mfg. Co., 123 la. 344,

98 N. W. 796; Miles 0. Schmidt, 168

Mass. 339, 47 N. E. 115; King v.

Howard, 27 Mo. 21; Hug v. Van

Burideo, 58 Mo. 202, 203; Smith 0.

Boston, Concord & M. Railroad, 36

K H. 458; McKibbin 0. Brown, 14

N. J. Eq. 13, 15 N. J. Eq. 498; Van by arbitrators will be specifically enforced if its nature renders such relief appropriate.50 Equity will enforce a contract to indemnify,51 or to exonerate a surety 52 or property 53 from liability. Damages are an inadequate remedy where there is no basis on which a court of law could give substantial redress, and yet the defendant's promise is of value.54 It is on this ground that not only a, promise to give a mortgage of land,55 but also to give a mortgage or pledge .of personal property, though of a kind not ordinarily the subject of equity jurisdiction, is enforced by equity.56 The probable value of the secu-

Doren 0. Robinson, 16 N. J. Eq. 256; Woodruff 0. Woodruff, 44 N. J; Eq. 349; Davila 0. United Fruit Co., 88 N. J. Eq. 602, 103 Atl. 519; Greason 0. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491, 496; Lowe 0. Brown, 22 Oh. St. 463; Groevenor 0. Flint, 20 R. I. 21, 24, 37 Atl. 304; Schneider 0. Reed, 123 Wis. 488, 101 N. W. 682.

49 Richardson v. Smith, L. R. 5 Ch. 648; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 U. S. 564, 16 Sup. Ct. 1173, 41 L. Ed. 2*5; Castle Creek Water Co. 0. Aspen, 146 Fed. 8, 76 C. C. A. 516; Coles 0. Peck, 96 Ind. 333, 49 Am. Rep. 161; Cherry-vale Water Co. 0. Cherryvale, 65 Kan. 219, 69 Pac. 176, 1126; St.

Louia v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 70 Mo. 69; Black v. Rogers, 75 Mo. 441, 440; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 214 N. Y. 488, 495, 108 N. . 856; Kaufmann 0. Liggett, 209 Pa. 87, 58 Atl. 129, 67 L. R. A. 353, 103 Am. St. Rep. 988; Gros-venor v, flint, 20 R. I. 21, 37 Atl. 304; Burton v. Landon, 66 Vt. 361, 29 Atl. 374; Richardson v. Harkness, 59 Wash. 474, 110 Pac. 9.

50 Hall v. Hardy, 3 Peere. Wms. 187; Blackett.o. Bates, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 117; Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story, 800, 823; Jones v. Blalock,' 31 Ala. 180; Whitney v. Stone, 23 Cal. 275; Story 0. Norwich 6 W. Railroad Co., 24 Conn. 94; Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 10; Caldwell v. Dickinson, 13 Gray, 365; Memphis & C. Railroad v. Scruggs, 50 Miss. 284; Bouck 0. Wilber, 4 Johns. Ch. 405; Maury 0. Post, 55 Hun, 454; Thompson 0. Deans, 6 Jones Eq. 22; Backus's App., 58 Pa. 186.

51 Ranelaugh v. Hayes, 1 Vera. 189; Anglo-Australian Co. v. British Soc., 3 Giff. 521, 4 De G. F. & J. 341; Chamberlain v. Blue, 6 Blackf. 491; Champion v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 396, 10 Am. Dec. 343; and see oases cited supra, Sec. 1274, ad fin.. .

52 See supra, Sec.1276.

53 Reilley v. Roberts, 34 N. J. Eq. 299; Malins v. Brown, 4 N. Y. 403; Berkley 0. Barkley, 14 Rich. Eq. 12.

But see Blood 0. Crew Levick Co., 171 Pa. 339, 33 Atl. 348.

54 Thus in Schmidt 0. Schmidt Bros. Co., 272 111. 340, 111 N. E. 1025. Where the damages caused by the breach of a contract to wind up the affairs of a contracting corporation and not to use its name for any new work were so uncertain and difficult of definite proof that an action at law woulcl not furnish an adequate remedy, equity took jurisdiction.

55 Hermann v, Hodges, L. R. 16 Eq. 18; Lowe 0. Walker, 77 Ark. 103, 91 S. W. 22; Fletcher 0. Hager-man, 120 Mich. 466, 79 N. W. 690; Dean 0. Anderson, 34 N. J. Eq.-496; Morris 0. McCutcheon, 213 Pa. 349, 62 Atl. 982.

56 Morris v. McCutcheon, 213 Pa. 349, 62 Atl.982. See 19 Harv. L. Rev. 557; ,'Williston, Cas. Bkcy. (2d ed.) 315 n. The question generally involved in the cases is not whether the promisee'B right is enforceable specifically against the promisor himself, but what is often but erroneously assumed to be the same question in principle, whether an equitable lien on the property arises which is valid against the promisor's creditors. A jurisdiction which denies, as many jurisdictions do, validity as against creditors to transfers of the legal title unless recorded or accompanied with a transfer of possession rity and the probable solvency of the debtor when the debt shall mature, are factors too indeterminate to make the legal remedy satisfactory, and generally where a contract is aleatory, this principle seems applicable.57 Under this principle a contract .to insure will be specifically enforced.58 But if the contract were absolutely renounced by the insurer so that the promisee was under no misapprehension regarding the promisor's attitude, the cost of getting another insurance policy seems to furnish an exact and adequate measure of the plaintiff's injury, unless under the particular circumstances other insurance is not read-fly obtainable.

Equity will not specifically enforce contracts to lend money; 59 nor, in the promisor's lifetime, a contract to leave property by will, since there has not been a breach until the promisor's death; 60 and even after the promisor's death, compensation in damages will usually be adequate.61 Where, howcan hardly be more lenient to a transfer confessedly only equitable.

57 8t. Reps Paper Co. v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., i73 N. Y. 149, 65 N. E. 967.

58 Mead v. Davidson, 3 A. & E. 303, 308; Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9. How. 390, 13 L. Ed. 187; Insurance Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. 460, 568, 22 ^ Ed. 423; Hughes v. Piedmont, etc., L. Ins. Co., 55 Ga. Ill; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ryland, 69 .Md. 437, 16 Atl. 109, 1 L. R. A. 548; Quinn-Shepherdflon Co. v. United States Fidelity Ac. Co., (Minn. 1919),

172 N. W. 693; Palm v. Medina Ac. K. Ins. Co., 20 Ohio, 529; Haden v. Farmers Ac. Ins. Assoc, 80 Va. 683; Croft v. Hanover F. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 508, 21 S. E. 854, 52 Am. St. Rep. 902.

59 Sichel v Mosenthal, 30 Bear. 371; Western Wagon Co. v. West, [1892] 1 Ch. 271, 275; South African Territories t v. Wallington [1898] A. C. 309; Leach v. Fuller, (Colo. 1918),

173 Pac. 427; Conklin v. People's Ass'n 41 N. J. Eq. 20, 2 Atl. 615; Bradford, etc., R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. Co., 123 N. Y. 316, 25 N. E. 499, 11 L. R. A. 116; Norwood t>. Crowder (N. C), 99 S. E. 345. In commenting upon the case last cited, Professor Pound says in 33 Harv. L. Rev. 432, "The real question, is as to mutuality of performance. If the lender is required to advance the money, can.the court .assure him that he will get back his money years hence when it is due? Where this difficulty is out of the way under the peculiar circumstances of the case (e. g.t Caplin v. Penn. L. Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. App. D. 269, 169 N. Y. B. 756) or the contract amounts in substance to a purchase of an issue of securities, the courts do not tell us that the .legal remedy is adequate.'1

60 Bolman v. Overall, 80 Ala. 451, 2 So. 624, 60 Am. Rep. 107; Manning v. Pippen, 86 Ala. 357, 362, 5 So. 572, 11 Am. St. Rep. 46; Chantland v. Sherman, 148 la. 352, 358, 125 N. W. 871; Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332, 66 Am. Dec. 773.

61 Christin v. dark (Cal. App.), 173 Pac. 109.

ever, the promise relates to specific property of such a kind as to make legal relief inadequate, equity may prevent such a disposition of the property during the life of the promisor as might deprive the promisee of redress after the promisor's death;62 and after his death equity will enforce an obligation against those to whom the property descends by devise or inheritance (if as is usual they are volunteers) to fulfil the testator's con-tract.63 Breach of a contract based on sufficient consideration to adopt another as the promisor's child and give him the rights of an heir has been similarly dealt with.64

Where a contract is not simply to make a specified devise or bequest, but not to revoke a specific will already drawn, as where parties agree upon mutual wills, the contract will in effect be enforced specifically by denying validity to any attempt made to revoke the will by later testamentary acts.66

62 Cannichsel v. Carmichsel, 72 Mich. 76, 40 N. W. 173, 1 L. R. A. 596, 16 Am. St. Rep. 528; Duvale v. Duvale, 54 N. J. Eq. 581, 35 Atl. 750, 56 N. J. Eq. 375, 39 Atl. 687, 40 Atl. 440.

62 Goilmere v. Battison, 1 Vem. 48; Ridley 0. Ridley, 34 Beav. 478; Allen v. Bromberg, 147 Ala. 317, 41 So. 771; Owens 0. McNaily, 113 Cal. 444, 45 Pac. 710, 33 L. R. A. 369; Red-ford v. Lloyd, 147 Ga. 145, 93 S. E. 296; Klussman v. Wessling, 238 111. 568, 571, 87 N. E. 544; Evans 0. Moore, 247 HI 60, 93 N. E. 118; 139 Am. St. Rep. 302; Baker 0. Syfritt, 147 la. 49, 125 N. W. 998; Taylor v. Taylor, 79 Kans. 161, 99 Pac. 814; Taylor v. Holyfield, 104 Kans. 587, 180 Pac. 208; Eastman 0. Eastman, 117 Me. 276, 104 Atl. 1; Odenbreit v. Utheim, 131 Minn. 56, 154 N. W. 741, L. R. A. 1916 D. 421; Howe 0. Watson, 179 Mass. 30, 60 N. E. 415; Peterson 0. Bauer, 83 Neb. 405, 119 N. W. 764; Young 0. Young, 45 N. J. Eq. 27, 16 Atl. 921; Phalen v. United States Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 178, 78 N. E. 943, 7 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 734; Morgan 0. Sanborn, 225 N. Y. 454, 122 N. E. 696; Earnhardt v.

Clement, 137 N. C. 91, 49 S. E. 49; Torgerson v. Hauge, 34 N. Dak. 646, 159 N. W. 6; Emery v. Darling, 50 Ohio St. 160, 33 N. E. 715; In re McGinley's Est., 257 Pa. 478, 101 Atl. 807; Spencer v. Spencer, 25 R. I. 239, 55 Atl. 637; Turnipseed 0. Sirrine, 57 S. C. 559, 35 S. E. 757, 76 Am. St. Rep. 580; Starnes 0. Hatcher, 121 Tenn. 330, 117 S. W. 219; Jordan 0. Abney, 97 Tex. 296, 78 S. W. 486; Smith 0. Pierce, 65 Vt. 200, 25 Atl. 1092; Hale v. Hale, 90 Va. 728, 19 S. E. 739; Fitsgerald v. Fitzgerald, 20 Grant's Ch. (U. C.) 410, and see esses in the two preceding notes. So where a testator had contracted with his heirs, not to make a will. Taylor 0. Mitchell, 87 Pa. 518, 30 Am. Rep. 383.

64 Chehak v. Battles, 133 la. 107, 110 N. W. 330, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130; Barney 0. Hutchinson, (N. Mex. 1918), 177 Pac. 890. But see Pair 0. Pair, 147 Ga. 754, 95 S. E. 295; Davis 0. Jones1 Adm., 94 Ky. 320, 22 S. W. 331, 42 Am. St. Rep. 360; Erlanger 0. Erlanger, 102 N. Y. Misc. 236, 168 N. Y. S. 928, affcL 171 N. Y. S. 1084.

65 Frazier v. Patterson, 243 111. 80,