(d) Stat. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 8, replacing 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 40.

(e) Toft v. Stephenson, 7 Hare, 1, 1 De G. M. & G. 28, 5 ib. 735; above, pp. 506, 509, 510.

(f) S. C, 5 De G. M. & G. 735; above, pp. 49, 419, 626, 630.

(g) Consider Sutton v. Sutton, 22 Ch. D. 511; Fearnside v. Flint, ib. 579; Re Frisby, 43

Ch. D. 106; Re England, 1895, 2 Ch. 820.

(h) Above, pp. 925 sg., 944.

(i) Barnes v. Glenton, 1899, 1 Q. B. 885.

(A) Stat. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, s. 42; Hunter v. Nockolds, 1 Mac. & G. 640; Dingle v. Coppen, 1899, 1 Ch. 726, 729, 746; Re Lloyd, 1903, 1 Ch. 385, 398 - 401.

(l) Stat. 3 &4 Will. IV.c.42, s. 3, as modified by 37 & 38 Vict. c. 57,

It has been mentioned that, as a rule, either party to a contract to sell land is entitled to sue in equity for specific performance of the agreement (m). This right is, in general, founded on a breach of the contract, but not in the same manner as the right to sue at law. The Court has no jurisdiction to award damages at law except in case of a breach of the contract (n); while the equitable jurisdiction to order an agreement to be specifically performed is not limited to the cases in which at law damages would be recoverable (o). At the same time the Court, in exercising its discretion {p) to grant this equitable relief, will hardly interfere to coerce a party who is of his own accord duly carrying out the contract (q); so that the right to pursue this remedy must in general depend on the defendant's failure or refusal to perform the agreement (r). This right is, however, entirely distinct from the right of action arising on breach of the contract at law (s). Thus, the equitable right to enforce the contract specifically may be barred by the laches of the person entitled (t), while his right to sue for damages is unimpaired (u). And we have seen that the vendor's liability to be sued for specific performance of the agreement is not destroyed by the vendor's bankruptcy, or any proceedings therein (x).

The equitable right to specific performance of the contract.

S. 8; Sims v. Thomas, 12 A. & E. 536; and cases cited in note (g), above.

(m) Above, p. 31.

(n) See above, p. 933, n. (c).

(o) Bettesworth v. St. Paul's, Select Cases t. King, 66, 1 Bro. P. C. 240; Cannel v. Buckle, 2 P. W. 243, 244; Lennon v. Napper, 2 Sch. & Lef. 682, 684; Bass v. Clivley, Taml. 80, where a decree for specific performance was made against a defendant who had committed no breach of contract, but the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs; Fry, Sp. Perf. Sec. 60, p. 26, 3rd ed.; above, pp. 11, 36, 634, 635.

(p) Above, p. 31.

(q) Whitmel v.Farrel, 1 Ves.sen. 256, 258; Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. 400, 409; Price v. Penzance Corp., 4 Hare, 506.

(r) See Van Heythuysen's Equity Draftsman, i. 9 sq., 2nd ed.; Fry, Sp. Perf. Sec. 3, 4, 47, pp. 3, 20, 3rd ed.

(s) Above, p. 935.

(t) Path v. Williams, 4 De G. M. & G. 674, 691; Levy v. Stogdon, 1898, 1 Ch. 478, 484, affirmed, 1899, 1 Ch. 5.

(u) Cornwall v. Henson, 1900, 2 Ch. 298.

(x) Above, pp. 478, 479, 483, 922.