case pike versus williams e contra see Dillwyn v Llewelyn de g f I Feb a  public survey be hold for sale of a estate and a offer pound for it it be  accept and agree to and conveyance order to be get ready and a be put into  possession but dispute arise about settle the conveyance a get a assignment of  a mortgage to which the estate be subject and antedate it and refuse to go on  with the purchase though the agreement be only parole yet on the circumstance  of this case a be decree to proceed in the purchase the defendant William have  mortgage the land in question to one marsh for pound die leave a infant and it  be for the advantage of the infant that the Vernon chancery case er p estate  shall be sell a act of parliament be procure for that purpose and the widow  and trustee hold a public survey for the sale of it at which pike appear and  offer pound for it but one Goulson bid pound and sign the contract but short  after ware die and then the plaintiff pike offer again pound which be accept  and agree unto conveyance direct to be make and possession actual deliver in  June but dispute arise about settle the conveyance pike in September get a  assignment from marsh of the mortgage and get it antedate as in July Vernon  chancery case the plaintiff pike bill be that the defendant may redeem or be  foreclose the cross bill be to compel pike to go on with his purchase pike by  answer confess he agree to purchase for pound that direction be give for draw  the conveyance touch which dispute afterward arise between they deny he enter  pursuant to his contract for the purchase but under the assignment of the  mortgage and deny the mortgage be antedate in all which particular his answer  be full disprove and the single question be whether upon circumstance of this  case although the agreement be only parole it shall be decree and pike hold to  his purchase and as instance where parole agreement in part execute by deliver  of possession c have be decree since the statute against fraud and perjury be  cite the case of Foxcraft and Lister wh t l Foxcroft v Leicester full state  Colles p c p and cite pale yellow Eq can Lockey v Lockey pre c et vide journ  Ho lord vol p where the plaintiff pursuant to a parole agreement for a  building lease of wile house proceed to pull down part and build part and  before any lease execute the owner of the soil die the defendant his  representative know nothing of the matter and insist on the statute make for  the prevention of fraud and perjury and the Lord keeper dismiss the bill but  upon a appeal to the lord in parliament that dismission be reverse and a  building lease decree and the case of butcher and butcher butcher v stapeli  ante Vol vern S c the Lord keeper decree pike to proceed in the purchase in  case he can have a good title and for that purpose refer it to a master the  cross bill charge that pike while in possession receive the profit and take  the wheat grow upon eight acre of land part of the promise in question before  the assignment of the mortgage by marsh and that pike gad declare he be the  purchaser at pound and have do many act as owner and particular that he have  contract in write with one Skinner for a lease for three life for pound and  have receive part of such considerationmoney and have put Skinner in  possession but afterward make void the bargain and get again into possession  of the premise which be not deny by the answer but say that he do so by virtue  of his title as assignee of marsh and not under the agreement with the  plaintiff in the cross bill and the decree be as above with this that he be to  pay the residue of the pound after a discount of the sum of pound S d pay by  he to marsh together with interest for such residue from the time the same  ought to have be pay otherwise and upon the defendant not pay pike what shall  appear due on a account therein direct to be take before the master on the say  mortgage so assign by marsh to he as aforesaid the defendant to be foreclose  Reg lib b fol vide on the doctrine of parole agreement and part performance  and specific performance Hollis v Edward ante Vol and case cite in note there  and in addition as to agreement be bind if sign by vendor only Coleman v duck  vin ab foul v freeman Ves where hold good though sign by vendor only the  vendor have in that case subjoin a letter to his solicitor desire he to  prepare a proper agreement for the vendor and vendee to sign but that make no  difference see the judgement in lawrenson v butler Sch Lef and as to the want  of mutuality Bromley v Jeffries ante so specific performance decree of a  agreement the term of which be contain in a letter though the identical  agreement be not sign such dict per Eldon Lord chancellor small boat v  Trecothick Ves so foul v freeman ub sup so per Lord chancellor say to be now  clear settle that a agreement in write may be dissolve by parole and also that  a agent need not be authorize in write coal v Trecothick ub sup but it shall  seem the agreement make by a agent must be in write mortlock v buller Ves as  to the general Vernon chancery case er p principle that be to be adduce from  the case they seem to be few and from the nature of the subject nice and  difficult in their application it appear however saint that this court be not  bind specifical to execute every contract but that it be matter of judicial  discretion and dly that where there be any circumstance of surprise or that  make it not fair and honest to call for a execution the court may neither  decree a specific performance nor order the contract to be deliver up but  leave the party to his remedy at law twine v morris bro Ch Rep wase v Emery  Ves affirm on appeal Ves white v Damon Ves mortlock v buller Ves as to  specific performance of parole agreement on the ground of part performance see  aveling v knipe Ves Blore v Sutton mere Morphett v Jones swan savage v carol  ba be tool v Medlicott ibidem Kine v Balfe ba be