Every tract 'of realty is in a way unique. No amount of money will enable one to acquire a given tract for a private purpose without the consent of the owner thereof. It follows that a contract to convey realty is one the breach of which cannot be compensated for adequately by money damages. Specific performance of such contracts is therefore regularly given by equity if the other elements of the contract are such as to make this remedy proper.1 So specific performance is given of a contract to exchange realty,2 or to rescind an exchange already made,3 or to lease realty,4 or to give a mortgage.5 This principle is not limited to contracts concerning corporeal realty, but extends also to contracts concerning easements,6 such as contracts concerning the right of way of a railroad,7 or a contract giving to one railroad the right to run trains over the road of another subject to the orders of officers of the latter,8 or to maintain and use a telegraph wire on the poles of another.9 In most of the cases discussed specific performance has been given at the instance of the vendee. Specific performance is also often given at the application of the vendor.10 This remedy is given even when it results in the specific performance of provisions which by themselve? would not he thus enforced in equity. Thus specific performance has been given of a contract to construct and maintain a depot for freight and passengers upon the realty conveyed to the promisor in consideration of his promise and of which he has taken possession.11

61 Minn. 271; 63 N. W. 735; Reed v. Reed, 94 Mo. App. 590; 68 S. W. 385; Rothholz v. Schwartz, 46 N. J. Eq. 477; 19 Am. St. Rep. 409; 19 Atl. 312; Johnson v. Wadsworth, 24 Or. 494; 34 Pac. 13; Rigg v. Ry., 191 Pa. St. 298; 43 Atl. 212; His-sam v. Parrish, 41 W. Va. 686; 56 Am. St. Rep. 892; 24 S. E. 600.

2 Reed v. Reed, 94 Mo. App. 590; 68 S. W. 385.

3 Cooley v. Lobdell, 153 N. Y. 596; 47 N. E. 783; Dunckel v. Dunckel, 141 N. Y. 427; 36 N. E. 405; Winchell v. Winchell, 100 N. Y. 159; 2 N. E. 897; Odell v. Mont-ross, 68 N. Y. 499; Miller v. Bell, 64 N. Y. 286.

4 Charlton v. Real Estate Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 631; 54 Atl. 444.

5 See Sec. 1607-1623.

6 Stellmacher v. Bruder. 89 Minn.

507; 95 N. W. 324; Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350; 74 Am. St. Rep. 490; 43 L. R. A. 427; 78 N. W. 4; Moayon v. Moayon, - Ky. -; 60 L. R. A. 415; 72 S. W. 33; Ralston v. Ihmsen, 204 Pa. St. 588: 54 Atl. 365.

1 Willard v. Tayloe, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 557; Speer v. Craig, 16 Colo. 478; 27 Pac. 891; Harding v. Gibbs, 125 111. 85; 8 Am. St. Rep. 345; 17 N. E. 60; Throckmorton v. Davidson, 68 la. 643; 27 N. W. 794; Moayon v. Moayon, - Ky. - ; 60 L. R. A. 415; 72 S. W. 33; New-bold v. Peabody Heights Co., 70 Md. 493; 3 L. R. A. 579; 17 Atl. 372; Wilkinson v. Kneeland, 125 Mich. 261; 84 N. W. 142; Svanburg v. Fosseen, 75 Minn. 350; 74 Am. St. Rep. 490; 43 L. R. A. 427; 78 N. W. 4; Gates v. Dudgeon, 173 N Y.

426; 93 Am. St. Rep. 608; 66 N. E. 116; King v. Millard, 15 R. I. 426: 7 Atl. 405; Lothrop v. Marble. 12 S. D. 511; 76 Am. St. Rep. 626; 81 N. W. 885; Farrier v. Reynolds. 88 Va. 141; 13 S. E. 393; Camden v. Dewing, 47 W. Va. 310; 81 Am. St. Rep. 797; 34 S. E. 911.

2 Union Pacific Ry. v, McAlpine, 129 U. S. 305; Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 513; Cusack v. Budasz, 187 111. 392; 58 N. E. 326; Overstreet v. Rice, 4 Bush. (Ky.) 1; 96 Am. Dec. 279; Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592; 78 N. W. 288.

3Boggs v. Bodkin. 32 W. Va. 566; 5 L. R. A. 245; 9 S. E. 891.

4 Hexter v. Pearce (1900). 1 Ch. 341; Moss v. Barton, L. R. 1 Eq. 474; Clark v. Clark, 49 Cal. 586; Switzer v. Gardner, 41 Mich. 164: 2 N. W. 191; Smith v. St. Philip's Church, 107 N. Y. 610; 14 N. E. 825; Wallace v. Scoggins, 17 Or. 476; 21 Pac. 558; Seaman v. Ascher-155 mann, 51 Wis. 678; 37 Am. Rep. 849; 8 N. W. 818.

5 Hermann v. Hodges, L. R. 16 Eq. 18; Hicks v. Turck, 72 Mich. 311; 40 N. W. 339; Irvine v. Armstrong, 31 Minn. 216; 17 N. W. 343; Ogden v. Ogden. 4 O. S. 182.

6 Puttman v. Haltey, 24 la. 425.

7 Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1; Cornwall, etc., Co.'s Appeal, 125 Pa. St. 232; 17 Atl. 427.

8 Union Pacific Ry. v. Ry., 163 U. S. 564; Prospect Park, etc., R. R. v. Ry., 144 N. Y. 152; 26 L. R. A. 610; 39 N. E. 17.

9 Franklin Telegraph Co. v. Harrison, 145 U. S. 459.

10 Maryland Clay Co. v. Simpers, 96 Md. 1; 53 Atl. 424; Abbott v. Moldestad, 74 Minn. 293: 73 Am. St. Rep. 348; 77 N. W. 227; Anderson v. Mfg. Co., 30 Wash. 147; 70 Pac. 247.

11 Murray v. R. R., 64 S. C. 520; 42 S. E. 617.