c marquis OF Normanby v duke OF Devonshire execution of a agreement in specie  the bill be to have the specific execution of a agreement make with my Lord  Berkeley concern Berkeley house it be say that before the statute of fraud and  perjury this court will not execute a parole agreement unless it have be  execute in part of one side or the other and then it will because it be but  reason when one party have perform of his part that the other party shall be  compel to perform of his part Buckmaster v Harrop Ves but if a agreement be  under hand and seal that be suppose freeman to be make and transact with great  caution and solemnity and though there have be no execution of either side yet  this court will compel the execution of it it be say by the attorneygeneral  that since the statute of fraud c if a agreement be make and reduce into write  and sign but not seal that this be still but a parole agreement and the write  be only a evidence of it Rann v Hugh t r in note but it be all the evidence  require by the statute sanderson v Jackson Bos and pull it be say also that  where this court execute a agreement in specie it must be such a agreement as  be fair make without any fraud or circumvention Cadmam v Horner Ves Clermont v  Tasburgh James and walk where no action at law will lie to recover damage  there this court will not execute the agreement in specie for equity will  never make that a good agreement which be not good by law Huddlestone v  Briscoe Ves but where the contract be objectionable it be as much of course in  a court of equity to decree a specific performance as it be to give damage at  law hall v warren Ves for though the court have a discretionary power it be  govern by a sound not a capricious and arbitrary discretion mason v Armitage  Ves ante c p note but whether it be necessary in order to support a bill for  specific performance that the case shall be one upon which a action may be  maintain for damage be a question which have receive contradictory decision  these the reader may find collect in Mr Fonblanques note to treat on Eq the  late case in print in which the point have be raise since Mr Fonblanque write  be believe to be William v steward Meriv but as that case be decide on its own  peculiar circumstance this question be as open to argument as before see post  c p req lib b for the Lord chancellor assist by holt and Treby Ch I I declare  that the court be unanimous of opinion the plaintiff be entitle to no relief  in equity and dismiss his bill