Equity will never decree the specific performance of a contract where there is a lack of consideration, or a gross inadequacy of consideration. Under this heading would be included cases where the vendor of property is unable to give a good title.

Inadequacy of consideration is not a sufficient defense to a bill seeking specific performance, unless the inadequacy be gross. In Abbott vs. Sworder,17 the Lord Chancellor said:

14 Moote vs. Scriven, 33 Mich., 500;

Russell vs. Russell, 60 N. J.

Eq., 282. 15 Townsend vs. Vanderwerker, 160

U. S., 171; Owens vs. McNally, 113 Cal., 444; Wilke vs. Miller, 171 I11., 556. 16 Teaque vs. Fowler, 56 Ind., 563.

"As to the question of inadequacy of consideration, the Lord Chancellor said: Undervalue there was, but the court could not estimate that undervalue in property of this sort. It was property which some people would look at only as a farm. Other persons who wanted a residence might not object to a house on the top of a hill, but might prefer such a situation. However that might be, Mr. Sworder bought the land, and had undoubtedly bought it dear. But the court could not interfere in such a case on the ground of undervalue; for that purpose the undervalue would be such as to shock the conscience. The defendant personally tested the character of the land by actual diggings, and then thought the property worth 5,000. It was a bad bargain, but the court had no power to relieve the defendant from it."