case hall v hardy sir Joseph Jekyll master of the roll Eq can ab pl bill lie  to compel a specific performance of a award to convey a estate where the party  submit have receive the money in consideration whereof he be to convey the  estate sue for upon a bill bring to compel the defendant to make a specific  performance of a award the case be thus the plaintiff and defendant be brother  and sister between who there be a dispute touch the feesimple of the small  parcel of land under their father will and the plaintiff and defendant enter  into a bind in the penalty of pound to stand to the award of arbitrator touch  this matter the arbitrator make a award that the plaintiff shall pay pound to  the defendant at such a day and pound to the defendant at a other day and that  thereupon the defendant shall procure his wife to join with he in a fine and  deed of use and thereby convey the premise to the plaintiff and her heir the  plaintiff pay the defendant the pound which the defendant accept u on the day  on which it be award to be pay afterward the plaintiff tender the remain pound  on the day on which that be award to be pay and the defendant be Willing to  take the money but will not execute the peer William fine and deed of use  wherefore the plaintiff bring this bill to compel the defendant to a specific  performance of the award upon open the cause the master of the roll say he  think this a strange bill for which he know no precedent and that the  plaintiff must sue his bind whereupon I urge that the plaintiff have actual  pay the pound accord to the award and the defendant accept it and thereby  undertake to perform the award that if this suit be not to be allow the  plaintiff will have no remedy to get back the money pay by her to the  defendant that in vern Norton v mascall S c Charles Rep d Edit Scott v Wray  Charles Rep bishop v bishop Charles peer William er p Rep and see wood v  Griffith swan the court decree a specific performance of a award though in  that case it be not execute and in strictness of law void to which his honour  reply that because the award be not good in law therefore in the case cite  there may be reason to decree a specific performance however the court desire  to know what the counsel for the defendant have to say as to the defendant  have accept part of the money it be insist on his behalf to be sufficient that  there be unless in very particular circumstance no instance of a bill be bring  for a specific performance of a award beside that this be a unreasonable award  videlicet that the husband shall procure his wife to join with he in a fine  which it may not be in his power to do and therefore the court will not oblige  he to it also the wife join ought to be free and not by the compulsion of her  husband that the plaintiff have a plain proper and natural remedy which be to  sue the bind whereon the penalty will be recover and even as oh the money  which have be pay peer William if the defendant will not perform the award by  procure his wife to join with he in a fine the plaintiff may recover it back  as receive to the plaintiff use master of the roll there have be a hundred  precedent where if the husband for a valuable consideration covenant that the  wife shall join with he in a fine the court have decree the husband to do it  for that he have undertake it and must lie by it if he do not perform it the  money pay in pursuance of the award can be say to have be pay by the plaintiff  to the use of the plaintiff herself and the precedent in Mr Vernon show that  this court have decree a specific performance of a award which be more  especial reasonable in the present case where the plaintiff have pay and the  defendant accept part of the money award for by this acceptance the defendant  have undertake to perform the award have consent to it and make it his own  agreement for a valuable consideration videlicet the money pay he wherefore  take a decree for the defendant performance of the award upon the payment of  the residue of the money award and let he pay cost it be a defence against  conscience to take the money award and vet refuse to perform his part of the  award peer William note these decree may not have be usual because award be  common to pay money in which case a bill in equity to compel a performance be  improper but where the award be to do any thing in specie as to convey a  estate c in such case if the defendant have accept the money award he in  satisfaction of the conveyance it be high reasonable that he shall make the  conveyance the rather for that if the plaintiff have sue the bind at law the  defendant will have be believable by bill in equity against the penalty of the  bind upon a quantum injure so that such a decree as in the principal case  prevent a suit in equity Reg lib a fol because in all these case it be to be  presume that the husband where he covenant that his wife shall levy a fine  have first gain her consent for that purpose so say by the master of the roll  in the case of winter v devreux Trinity and that the interest in such covenant  have be take to be a inheritance descend to the heir of the covenantee but  after all if it can be make appear to have be impossible for the husband to  procure the concurrence of his wife as suppose there be difference between  they sure the court will not decree a impossibility especial where the husband  offer to return all the money with interest and cost and to answer all the  damage this point have be much discuss Barrington v horn Eq can ab pl Sedgwick  v Hargrave ves sen wither v Pinchard cite Ves and morris v Stephenson Ves be  case where the husband have be decree to procure the wile to join and ortread  v round vin ab pl Emery v wase Ves and S c on appeal Ves be case where a  decree to that effect have be refuse and the dictam in more recent case  support those decision Davis v Jones n r Howel v George mad Martin v Mitchell  I W peer William er p