c William Bromley esquire v FETTIPLACE S c Prec in Charles vern Eq can ab Lord  keeper master of the roll sir Roland Berkley have issue only daughter settle  his estate upon trustee to sell subject nevertheless to a power of revocation  afterward upon the marriage of his daughter with the plaintiff by deed recite  that his intent be that the manor of Cotteridge in question shall go to the  issue male of the plaintiff he thereby agree that if the plaintiff shall be  mind to purchase the same to he and his heir he shall have it for pound cheap  than thebest purchaser will give for the same sir Ro Berkley afterward make  his will and give the complainant pound to be raise out of this manor but do  not mention whether it shall be in satisfaction of the pound agree to be allow  the plaintiff in case he will purchase the same the plaintiff prefer his bill  to have the agreement execute that he may purchase the say manor and have a  allowance of the pound and here two question be make saint question whether  this agreement ought to be execute in specie upon the deed of covenant as it  so stand without any relation to the will d question whether the pound give by  the will shall be intend in satisfaction of pound agree to be allow the  plaintiff in case he shall purchase to the first question it be hold that as  it stand bare upon the deed this court will not execute this agreement in  specie for this court will not execute all agreement in specie but will  consider upon circumstance relate to the say agreement the reasonableness and  equitableness of execute the same and will in many case leave the party to his  remedy at law ante c p note to the authority there refer to add join v Statham  atk to recover damage only for not perform the say agreement and the reason  why they will not execute it in this case be because as it appear upon the  face of the say agreement it will not answer the intent of it it be declare by  freeman the say sir Ro Berkley in the say agreement that it be intend that  this manor shall go to the issue male of Mr Bromley and Mr b have be marry  twentytwo year and have no issue male it be plain the main end of the  agreement will not be answer by a execution in specie The converse of the same  principle hold if a purchaser can have what be his strong inducement to enter  into the contract a specific performance with compensation will not be enforce  Stapylton v Scott Ves alley v deschamps ib and it be say by the Lord keeper  for another reason he can not be for execute it because he look upon it as  impracticable for Mr b to have it at pound less than the best purchaser will  give because it be impossible to know what the best purchaser will give for it  can not be expose to sale before a master to the best purchaser because  whoever shall bid for the estate be not to have it because Mr b be to have it  pound cheaper Emery v wase Ves so when party agree that the price of the  subject of their treaty shall be fix by arbitrator and these do not fix it  there be no contract as the price be of the essence of a contractor sale and  the court of equity can make a contract where there be none Gourley v the duke  of Somerset Ves it be say that general this court will not execute a agreement  in specie but when the agreement be such that a action at law will lie for  damage for the nonperformance of it See ante c p and note there the rule be a  general one but admit exception or there will frequent be a failure of justice  but in some case that will not hold for if a marriage agreement shall be so  ill word that a action will not lie at law for the breach of it yet this court  will decree a performance and sometime per master of the roll subsequent  accident discharge the execution of a agreement in specie and cite the case in  Fitzherbert subpoena cite in Shelleys case   where a man be sick direct his  trustee to convey to his daughter and afterward have a son bear and die the  trustee shall convey to the son and not to the daughter and he hold likewise  that Mr Bromley may have discharge this agreement by parole in as much as it  be say if he shall be mind to purchase c Howell v George mad prefer to armiger  v clark bunb want of mutuality in a contract be sufficient ground for refuse  to decree a specific performance to the second question whether this pound  give by the will shall be intend in satisfaction of the pound mention in the  agreement or whether Mr d shall have both and it be clear hold that he shall  not Richardson v grief atk Blandy v Widmore p wms in as much as the pound be  to be raise out of the same land and the land be thereby otherwise dispose of  so that it can not be intend to make this inference irrefragable it be  necessary to presume that some further ground for it appear in the will itself  than be to be find in the report if the land be otherwise dispose of for  purpose which can not be answer if a charge of pound be first to be make good  thereout that will no doubt strong indicate that no such deduction be  contemplate otherwise there appear prima fancy no conclusive certainty that  the testator may not intend the estate to be take cum load a legacy to a widow  to be raise out of the same estate of which she be dowable or a devise of part  of that very estate afford no presumption against her title to dower Lord  Dorchester v earl of Effingham coop king by sir r b that he shall have both  but a question arise whether the plaintiff shall be admit to read evidence to  explain the testator meaning in that particular and allege that it may be  freeman er p so do the question be only touch the personal estate though it  can not be so in a will touch land because by the statute freeman car c S such  will must be in write and no averment shall be receive out of the will but as  to a personal estate it have be do so in my lady gainsborough case ante c p in  this court to which it be answer per cur that what be read there be in  affirmance of the law pole v Lord summer Ves upon the will which be to carry  the personal estate to the executor and that case stand single by itself but  in the case of the Lord Falkland and caryi ante c p it be deny that letter  shall be read to explain the agreement though it be then insist on that letter  be in write and so more certain and the master of the roll cite the case of  leak and Randall in Vernon case in the four report p that a collateral thing  devise by a will can not be aver to be in satisfaction of dower unless it do  appear so to be by the will Birmingham v Kirwan Sch and Lef Reg lib a fol the  cause be hear on the that of may and on the d of July the plaintiff declare  himself Willing to accept the say pound so as he may also be pay interest for  the same from the deal of sir Roland Berkeley the court decree accord and also  give the plaintiff his cost but here the pound devise be not collateral  because it be to arise out of the same land the plaintiff bill be dismiss as  to the execute of the agreement in specie but he be offer a decree for the  pound legacy but n be to be enjoin from proceed at law and have time to  consider whether he will take it or not