Where the plaintiff has not fully performed the contract on his part, and the nature thereof is such that the court cannot compel performance by the plaintiff, it will refuse to decree specific performance by the defendant.100 The vendee in a land contract in asking a decree for a deed must show that he has paid the purchase price or that he is ready, able, and willing to pay such purchase price, otherwise a decree for specific performance will be refused.101

98. "A contract fully performed on the one side, to convey to a daughter and her husband defendant's homestead in consideration that the former would give up their farm, move to the home in the vil lage and occupy it with defendant, and make some improvements named, the deed to be executed when the improvements were completed, is enforceable against the grantor though it was not in writing.

"It is not a matter of course to decree specific performance; a sound discretion is exercised, and the same must not be arbitrary and capricious, but regulated on judicial grounds; where the terms are certain and definite, the acts of the parties and performance on the one side take it out of the statute." Friend v. Smith, 191 Mich. 99.

99. Rubenstine v. Powers, 215 Mich. 435. Where specific performance was enforced against both vendor and vendee and where vendor was compelled to specifically perform as to a fractional interest.

Friskorn v. Fitzgerald, 215 Mich.

106. Where property had greatly increased in value by plaintiff's own efforts.

Birney v. Ready, 216 Mich. 7. Where specific performance was granted to a vendee on cross-bill who had purchased.

Goodman v. Wobig, 216 Mich. 51. Relating to the assignment of a patent.

Standard Oil Co. v. Murray, 214 Mich. 431. Relief of specific performance in this case was granted and it was held that it was no defense to the action of specific performance where the defendant claims she did not understand the contract and there was no showing of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff or his agent.

It was also held in this case that conversations between the defendant and her attorney tending to show what instructions she had given him, were not admissible In evidence.

100. Green Bay City v. Port Huron R. Co., 156 Mich. 436.

101. Morris v. Hoyt, 11 Mich. 8.

On the other hand the vendor must show that he is ready, willing, and able to give a good title to the lands which he contracted to sell before he can maitain a bill for specific performance against the vendee, as the court will not compel a vendee to accept a doubtful title, and the vendee is entitled to a reasonable time and opportunity to examine the title.102 Unless the contract is mutual and binding on both parties, the court will not enforce it.103

Where a contract has been obtained by sharp or unscrupulous practices, specific performance will not be enforced.104

Illustrating the principle that the court will not enforce inequitable contracts, it has been held where a contract to exchange property would result in the plaintiff being compelled to transfer his property for practically nothing, the court in such case, would not decree specific performance.105

Where it would be inequitable to do so, the court will not grant the relief of specific performance.106 Where the moving party in an action for specific performance comes into court, having driven an inequitable bargain, the court will refuse to specifically perform the contract.107

102. Ford v. Wright, 114 Mich. 189; Gray v. Mill, 105 Mich. 189; Walker v. Sullivan, 127 Mich. 267; Raynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571; Lamhert v. Weher, 83 Mich. 395.

103. Where payment has been made by the purchaser and there is no delivery of a written acceptance of the vendor's offer, although such acceptance has been signed by the purchaser, a contract to convey the land was not mutual, and not enforceable against the vendor. Hollingshead v. Morris, 172 Mich. 126.

104. Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land will not be awarded if it has been obtained by sharp or unscrupulous practices or by overreaching or concealment of important facts. Gibb v. Mintline, 175 Mich. 626.

105. State Security Realty v. Shaffer, 175 Mich. 634.

106. Where defendants would be compelled to convey their property for practically nothing if the contract was enforced, equity would not decree specific performance.

State Security & Realty Co. v. Shaffer, 176 Mich. 639.

107. "The remedy by specific performance is not a remedy of right, but it rests in the sound discretion of the court, and this discretion should be exercised unless the case is clear, and should never be exercised where the moving party does not come into equity with clean hands.

"The specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate in favor of the purchaser will be denied where the latter Is a

Where a contract is made by the trustee the cestui trust is properly joined with the trustee as a co-plain tiff and the bill should show a ratification by the cestui in trust.

Where the vendor has acquiesced in the sale of the vendee's interest in a land contract, the assignee of the vendee may have the same remedy by specific performance that his assignor would be entitled to.108

It is the duty of the plaintiff to make out his case by convincing evidence, and where the evidence is conflicting and the court is unable to say where the truth lies, the court will not decree specific performance.109

Where the contract calls for a marketable title, to be shown by the abstract, and the abstract disclosed that the title rested upon the foreclosure of a mortgage by advertisement, but does not show the mortgage contained a power of sale, a marketable title is not shown and specific performance will not be decreed at the instance of the vendor.110

It has been held that where the plaintiff contracted to purchase property but refused to accept a land contract which fully complied with the terms of the preliminary contract, the transaction was there at an end and after such refusal on his part, specific performance would not be enforced.111 See additional cases in the note.112 clever and financially irresponsible promoter and so frames the contract as to permit of protracted delays in payment, and the sellers are ignorant people of foreign ex traction, and it is unlikely that any tender of payment would have been made by him except for a profitable real estate transaction, and when pressed for payment, told the vendors to sell the property to somebody else and remained inactive until after the making of the sale."

Lake Erie Land Co. v. Chilinski, 197 Mich. 214.

108. Maday v. Roth, 150 M. 290. John v. McNeal, 167 M. 157.

109. Brodway v. Miller, 200 Mich. 648.

110. Ickler v. Mullen, 200 Mich. 620.

111. Penfield v. Schleicher, 215 Mich. 664; Bradley v. May, 214 Mich. 194. Where a bill of complaint for specific performance was dismissed because plaintiff had inadequate remedy at law.

112. See Sec. 121-122 P.