Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/648

ment, and therefore delayed the execution of the deeds at the day: but this was contradicted by the evidence, from whence it appeared, that it was entirely owing to Mrs. Bailiff's bad health, that the completing of the conveyances was delayed; and that Mr. Roots himself had given notice to the tenants of the premises, to pay their future rents to Mr. Pope. There was no pretence that the agreement was not fairly obtained, or that it was unreasonable. The houses were purchased by Roots about ten years before, for £250, and it did not appear, that he had been at any expence in improving them; but supposing the houses to have been of double the value they were purchased at, yet according to the calculations of the value of the annuity at the time it was agreed for, it greatly exceeded the value of the houses.

On the other side it was contended (E. Thurlow, J. Dunning, R. Bickne), that William Roots being dead before the agreement had been in any manner carried into execution, the whole of it could not now be performed; for that [376] part of it, by which an annuity of £70 a-year was to be secured for the life of William Roots, was become void, and totally at an end by his death, which happened before the commencement of the suit. No steps appeared to have been taken by the appellant for carrying this agreement into execution, until after the death of Roots, when it became certain, that he could have no benefit from the annuity agreed to be secured for his life; and that the respondents could pay no greater consideration for an estate, proved to be worth above £800 than £35, the amount of one half year's annuity; which, if the agreement had been completely carried into execution in Roots's lifetime, would have been payable on the 5th of October preceding his death, but which the appellant never offered to pay. Courts of Equity do not decree all agreements that are fairly entered into, to be specifically carried into execution, but consider the several circumstances of the case; and where the specific performance of an agreement would be attended with great hardship to either party, the Court will not decree it. In the present case it was manifest, that the carrying this agreement into specific execution, would be a great hardship on the persons claiming under William Roots; and particularly, as it appeared that his estate, exclusive of the premises in question, was scarcely sufficient for the payment of his debts. Besides, it was in proof, that the agreement, at the time of making it, was a very hard bargain; for the estate was worth upwards of £800 and the annuity might have been bought for less than £590; and that an annuity of £95 instead of £70 for the life of Roots, supposing him to have been in full health, would have been no more than a reasonable consideration for the purchase of the estate in question. It was therefore hoped, that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1774. p. 1019.)

The appellant, in Hilary term 1777, exhibited his bill in the Court of Chancery against the respondents; stating, that in the year 1753, Godfrey Clarke, esq. the