The fact that the contract for which specific performance was sought was enforceable at law was not of itself sufficient to warrant specific performance.1 Specific performance is said to be discretionary with the chancellor and not a matter of course.2 This, of course, means that the discretion spoken of is a judicial discretion controlled by the rules of equity, and not the mere arbitrary whim of the individual chancellor.3 It has been observed that " a decree for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate does not go as a matter of course, but is granted or withheld according as equity and justice seem to demand, in view of all the circumstances of the case."4 In other words, in order to be enforced by specific performance, a contract must possess certain elements, to be described hereafter, which give equity jurisdiction and make this remedy appropriate. It must be fair and reasonable, definite, of such nature that compensation for breach cannot be made in money, and the party seeking relief must have acted promptly in seeking this relief. While a contract for the sale of realty is the one most likely to call forth a decree of specific performance, there is no arbitrary rule that requires equity to ignore the remaining circumstances of the case, even in contracts for the sale of realty.

1 Kelly v. Ry., 74 Cal. 557; 5 Am. St. Rep. 470; 16 Pac. 386; Pinner v. Sharp, 23 N. J. Eq. 274; Friend v. Lamb, 152 Pa. St. 529; 34 Am. St. Rep. 672; 25 Atl. 577.

2 Mason v. Armitage. 13 Ves. Jr. 25; Cheney v. Libby, 134 U. S. 68; Willard v. Tayloe, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 557; Washington Irrigation Co. v. Krntz, 119 Fed. 279; Kelly v. Ry., 74 Cal. 557; 5 Am. St. Rep. 470; 16 Pac. 386; Patterson v. Bloomer, 35 Conn. 57; 95 Am. Dec. 218; Ebert v. Arends, 190 111. 221; 60 N. E. 211; Mack v. Mcintosh, 181 111. 633; 54 N. E. 1019; Minneapolis, etc.. Ry. v. Cox, 76 la. 306; 14 Am. St. Rep. 216; 41 N. W. 24; Reid v. Mix, 63 Kan. 745; 55 L. R. A. 706; 66 Pac. 1021; Rogers v. Saunders, 16 Me. 92; 33 Am. Dec. 635; Graves v. Goldthwait. 153 Mass. 268; 10 L. R. A. 763; 26 N. E. 860; Rust v. Conrad. 47 Mich. 449; 41 Am. Rep. 720; 11 N. W. 265; Pomeroy v. Ful-lerton, 131 Mo. 581; 33 S. W. 173; Hoctor-Johnson Co. v. Billings, 65 Neb. 214; 91 N. W. 183; Johnson v. Hubbell. 10 N. J. Eq. 332: 66 Am. Dec. 773; Winne v. Winne. 106 N.

Y. 263; 82 Am. St. Rep. 647; 59 N. E. 832; Stokes v. Stokes, 155 N. Y. 581; 50 N. E. 342; Whitted v. Fuquay, 127 N. C. 68; 37 S. E. 141; Datz v. Phillips, 137 Pa. St. 203; 21 Am. St. Rep. 864; 20 Atl. 426; Alexander v. McDaniel, 56 S. C. 252; 34 S. E. 405; Howard v. Moore, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 317; Gish v. Jamison, 96 Va. 312; 31 S. E. 521; Menger v. Schulz, 28 Wash. 329; 68 Pac. 875; Knott v. Mfg. Co., 30 W. Va. 790; 5 S. E. 266; Engberry v. Rousseau, 117 Wis. 52; 93 N. W. 824.

3 McCabe v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 550; Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley. 10 Wall. (U. S.) 339; Sturgis v. Galindo. 59 Cal. 28; 43 Am. Rep. 239; Maltby v. Thews. 171 111. 264; 49 N. E. 486; Mather v. Simonton, 73 Ind. 595; Grundy v. Edwards. 7 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 368; 23 Am. Dec. 409; Jones v. Newhall. 115 Mass. 244; 15 Am. Rep. 97; Eckstein v. Downing, 64 N. H. 248; 10 Am. St. Rep. 404: 9 Atl. 626; Hayes v. Nourse. 114 N. Y. 595; 11 Am. St. Rep. 700; 22 N. E. 40; Friend v. Lamb, 152 Pa. St. 529; 34 Am. St.