atkins case Howard versus hopkins July a proviso in article for the purchase  of a estate that if either shall break the agreement he shall pay pound to the  other the defendant on be offer two year purchase more accept it  notwithstanding his agreement Lord Hardwicke decree a specific performance of  the article the plaintiff have bring this bill for a specific performance of a  agreement the plaintiff and defendant execute article for the purchase of a  estate there be a proviso in it that if either side shall break the agreement  he shall pay pound to the other the defendant afterward meet with a three  person who offer he two year purchase more than the plaintiff upon which he  immediate accept of it notwithstanding his agreement with the plaintiff it be  insist by the defendant that the plaintiff have be a tenant for himself  several year of this very estate and that he depreciate the value of it and  make a false representation in order to keep off other and to secure it to  himself which be a fraud in the plaintiff and therefore the defendant ought to  be relieve from this bargain it be insist likewise that it be the intention of  the plaintiff and defendant that upon either pay pound the agreement shall be  absolute void Lord chancellor as to the defence of the stipulate sum I can  take this to let off either party when they please but be no more than the  common case of a penalty for it may be insert by the plaintiff in order to be  pay for his trouble of view and measure the estate take plan c suppose the  defendant shall not be able to make out a title in all these case where  penalty be insert in a case of nonperformance this have never be hold to  release the party from their agreement but they must perform it  notwithstanding indeed if there have be evidence which have prove a  misrepresentation of the farm by the plaintiff to a gentleman who have a  desire of purchase it that will have be a reason for set asideathe agreement  and will have rebut the equity the plaintiff have of a specific performance of  the agreement atkins but the proof do not come up to this nor be the person  who be pretend to have drop the purchase of the estate mere upon the false  suggestion and atkins er p misrepresentation of the plaintiff examine as to  this fact and therefore I must decree a specific performance of these article  as to the increase of purchase money give by the defendant Norwood to the  defendant hopkins which must now be refund to the defendant Norwood be can  receive no more from the plaintiff than the sum agree to by the article but I  can make any decree as between codefendants unless I have their consent and  therefore shall leave this matter open Reg lib a for