Wherever,  therefore,  the  party  wants  the  thing  in  specie,  and
he  cannot  otherwise  be  fully  compensated.  Courts  of  Equity
will  grant  him  a  specific  performance.^


1  1  Madd.  Ch.,Pr.  287 ;  1  Fonbl.  Eq.  B.  1,  ch,',  1,  §  6,  ,note  (o)  ;  Newl.  on
.  Contr.  ch.  6,  p.  88 ;'  Halsey  v.  Grant,  13  Ves.  76.  The  case  in  8th  Edw.  IV.,
4,  (J,)  was  a  suit  in  Chancery ;, and  Genney,  of  counsel  for  the  defendant,  in,
his  argument  said,  by  way  of  illustration  (as  the  text  stands) :  "  If  I  promise  to
build  a  house  for  you,  if  I  do  not  build  it,  you  shall  have  a  remedy  by  subpasna ; "
to  which  the  Chancellor  is  reported  to  have  replied,  "  He  shall."  I  cannot  but
think,  that  Genney  put  the  case,  nbt  as  an  affirmative  proposition,  but  by  way
of  interrogatory,  (would  he  have  a  subpoena  f)  for  so  the  scope  of  his  argument
required.  But,  either  way,  the  Chancellor's  remark  points  in  favor  of  the  juris-
diction. In  eases  of  contract  to  build  a  house,  or  a  bridge,  a  specific  perform-
ance would  not  now  be  decreed.  See  Errington  v.  Aynesly,  2  Bro.  Ch.  E.  341,
342  ;  Mosely  v.  Virgin,  3  Ves.  jr.  185,  186  ;  Lucas  v.  Commerford,  3  Bro.  Ch.
K.  166,  167.  [Lucas  u.  Commerford  was  commented  on  ajad  disapproved  in  the
late  case  of  Moore  u.  Greg,  i2  Julristj  952.]  2  Gilbert,  Lex,'Pra8tor,  235.
3  1  Eonbl.  Eq.  B.  1,  ch.  1,  §  5,  note  (o) ;  Bettesworth  v.  Dean  of  St.  Pauls,
Sel.  Cas.  in  Ch.  68,  69  ;.  Halsey  v.  Grant,  13  Ves.  76  ;  Flint  «.  Brandon,  8  Ves.
