case daniel against Adam and mary his wife and other baron and feme have joint  power to sell a estate of the wife give authority to a agent to sell by  auction he sell by private contract for more than the price they require the  buyer shall not compel specific performance husband deliver his wife  compliment in a letter to the agent be no proof of her join in give authority  to agent lib Reg a foe at the roll the defendant mary Adam be entitle to a  estate in Essex subject to several mortgage convey it after marriage to such  use as she and her husband shall joint appoint remainder to her husband for  life remainder to herself for life as she shall by deed or will appoint and in  default of appointment to remain herself in fee ambler Adam and his wife have  a mind to sell two old house in the town of Colchest part of her estate give  verbal order on the saint September to Henry Bevans their steward to sell the  house by public auction and on the d of September Adam the husband write a  letter to Henry Bevans as follow sir as I have a great many application for my  house in Colchester I will by no mean part with the tenement of Smithies and  grey under pound mrs Adam desire her best compliment to you and mrs Bevans  Hcnry Bevans apprehend that he have power to sell by private contract and the  plaintiff Daniel offer to give he pound for the two house which be pound more  than Mr Adam be Willing to take for they Henry Bevans agree to sell the house  to Mr Daniel for that price and they enter into article for that purpose date  the that September by which Henry Bevans on behalf of Adam and his wife  covenant in consideration of pound pay and pound agree to be pay that he will  before Michaelmas day then next procure a good conveyance of the premise from  Adam and his wife to Daniel and his heir free from encumbrance and Daniel  covenant upon execution of the conveyance to pay the pound and for the  performance of the article they bind themselves each in the penalty of pound  bill by Daniel for performance of the agreement Adam and wife join in a answer  and say that have several application for the purchase of the house they  promise the refusal thereof in case the same be to be sell by private contract  but that such application induce they to sell the premise by public auction  they admit the verbal direction which be the only authority give to Bevans for  sale of the house and therefore as the premise be not put up to auction the  defendant mary insist she be not bind by the agreement it be argue for the  plaintiff that he be entitle to a decree either against the husband and wife  joint or against the husband to procure his wife to join in a conveyance it be  say that they be bind by the act of their agent though he have not strict  comply with their direction in ambler the mode of sell the house for as they  acknowledge that they have empower he to sell they must abide by what he have  do for it be reasonable that the person who place the confidence shall suffer  by his not conform to the authority give he and not the purchaser who place no  confidence in he unless any unfairness appear on the part of the purchaser  that there be no pretence of any unfairness in this case and it be say to be  like the case of a factor sell good at less price than he be commission in  which case ambler er p the principal will be bind it be likewise say that  suppose a attorney be commission to buy a estate to be sell under a decree at  a certain price and he shall bid more and declare his principal the court will  hold the principal to the bargain that this be the case of a marry woman make  no difference in the case of baker v child vern it be say where a feme covert  by agreement make with her husband be to surrender or levy a fine though the  husband die before it be do the court will by decree compel the woman to  perform the agreement and the case of hall v hardy wms and Barrington v horn  Michaelmas g Eq can Abr pi be cite as authority that where the husband alone  contract for his wife interest in a estate the court will compel the husband  to procure the wife to join in a conveyance even by a fine that the mode of  enforce decree of this kind by imprison the husband be consequential to the  right and not to be regard that the hardship be much great where the husband  be imprison for want of the wife put in a answer for in that case it do not  arise from any act of the husband as it do in this case he shall be cautious  of engage for his wife if it be otherwise will be very inconvenient they admit  that if the house have be sell by auction they shall be bind that it be equal  reasonable they shall be so though they be sell by private contract that it be  a scheme to make more of the estate that the objection of coverture ought to  avail both party or neither if a bill have be bring by Adam and his wife for  performance of the agreement Daniel can not have make the objection and  therefore Adam and his wife ought not to be permit to do it on bill bring by  Daniel that this will be the case if it rest on the verbal authority only but  the letter ambler make it much strong it import a sale general the agent  understand it so it be send the next day after the verbal message the wife  compliment be insert in it and it must be take to be write with the wife  consent that the advance price be material there be evidence in the cause that  the house be not worth the money the cause have proceed no far the first night  sir Thomas jewel master of the roll when it come on again give his opinion  without hear counsel for the defendant saint that the wife be not bind by the  contract which be not make pursuant to the authority give to Bevans in the  next place that she be not bind by the act of her husband and in the last  place that this be not such a case as will induce the court to compel the  husband to procure his wife to join he say it be not like the case put of a  factor which be for the convenience of trade and he say a attorney bid for a  estate more than he be empower to do will himself be liable but he doubt  whether his principal will see Cass v Rudell vern that the argument that both  or neither shall be bind do not hold in all case that where the wife be bind  she must have do something to confirm the agreement to receive some benefit  from it as in the case of Drury v Drury that the note of child v baker be very  lose that in Barrington v horn the husband have receive the consideration and  in hall v hardy he have receive part and be Willing to receive the rest that  those case go on the ground of fraud dismiss the bill without cost note I and  Mr perryn be counsel for the plaintiff in several early case it be hold that  when a husband agree to convey his wife estate he shall be compel to perform  the agreement specifical by procure his wife to join in the conveyance see  hall v hardy p W Barrington v horn Eq can Abr pi morris v Stephenson Ves Jun  winter v Devreux p W n wither v Pinchard Ves cite and see Sedgwick v Hargrave  Ves see in inn v Jackson Ves but the authority of these case have be much  shake by the remark of Lord Eldon in the case of Emery v wase Ves and of sir  Thomas plummer in Howell v George mad and in Martin v Mitchell I W and by  those of Lord Mansfield in Davis v Jones new Rep see mortlock v buller Ves  Cooth v Jackson Ves roper r W edn and note by Mr Jacob there Sugd vend Edward  ambler er p