The adequacy of consideration is to be measured by the breadth of plaintiff's under taking ; Warner v. Marshall, 166 Ind. 88, 75 N. E. 582. Mere inadequacy of considera tion will not be sufficient for withholding specific performance; Marks v. Gates, 154 Fed. 481, 83 C. C. A. 321, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 317, 12 Ann. Cas. 120; Townsend v. Blan chard, 117 Ia. 36, 90 N. W. 519 ; Lawson v. Mullinix, 104 Md. 156, 64 Atl. 938; but where the consideration is grossly inadequate, equity will not enforce the contract; id.; 2 Ves. Sr. 125; Kilpatrick v. Wiley, 197 Mo. 123, 95 S. W. 213; Rogers Locomotive & Mach. Works v. Helm, 154 U. S. 610, 14 Sup. Ct. 1177, 22 L. Ed. 562; Barrett v. Geisinger, 148 Ill. 98, 35 N. E. 354; Briles v. Goodrich, 116 Ia. 517, 90 N. W. 354; Pennybacker v. Maupin, 96 Va. 461, 31 S. E. 607; Marks v. Gates, 154 Fed. 481, 83 C. C. A. 321, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 317, 12 Ann. Cas. 120; where there is a' promise of support for life contained in a letter proposing marriage, and the mar riage is subsequently entered into by the par ties, equity will specifically enforce the terms; Offutt v. Offutt, 106 Md. 236, 67 Atl. 138, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232, 124 Am. St. Rep. 491.
It must also be founded upon a valuable consideration, and its performance in specie must be practicable and necessary; and, if it be one of the contracts which is embraced in' the statute of frauds, it must be evidenced in writing; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 751; Adams, Eq. 77.
The first requisite is that the contract must be founded upon a valuable considera tion; Shields v. Trammell, 19 Ark. 51; either in the way of benefit bestowed or of disad vantage sustained by the party in whose favor it is sought to be enforced; Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures v. But ler, 12 N. J. Eq. 498; and this consideration must be proved even though the contract be under seal; Thompson v. Allen, 12 Ind. 539 ; Short v. Price, 17 Tex. 397 ; a promise against a promise is not such a considera tion as will support a decree of specific per formance, nor does the presence of seals im port such a consideration; Winter v. Goeb ner, 2 Colo. App. 259, 30 Pac. 51. The con sideration must be strictly a valuable one, and not one merely arising from a moral duty or affection, as towards a wife and children; although it need not necessarily be an adequate one; Adams, Eq. 78. See Moore v. Pierson, 6 Ia. 279, 71 Am. Dec. 409; Jones v. Tyler, 6 Mich. 364.
The contract must be clearly and unequiv ocally proved and its subject matter, consid eration and all other essentials must be specific and unambiguous; Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Hansen, 137 Fed. 403, 71 C. C. A. 207, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1172; Logue v. Langan, 151 Fed. 455, 81 C. C. A. 271; and so where the description is sufficiently definite to enable the court to determine with certainty what property was intended to be conveyed ; Warner v. Marshall, 166 Ind. 88, 75 N. E.
582 ; or to enable the vendee to find and examine it ; Koch v. Streuter, 218 Ill. 546, 75 N. E. 1049, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 210; the court must be satisfied with the truth of the allegations of the complaint ; Sprague v. Jessup, 48 Or. 211, 83 Pac. 145, 84 Pac. 802, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 410.
The second requisite is that the mutual enforcement of the contract must be prac ticable; for if this cannot be judicially se cured on both sides, it ought not to be com pelled against either party. Among the cases which the court deems impracticable is that of a covenant by a husband to convey his wife's land, because this cannot be ef fectuated without danger of infringing upon that freedom of will which the policy of the law allows the wife in the alienation of her real estate; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 731; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. 335. See Morgan v. Bell, 3 Wash. 554, 28 Pac. 925, 16 L. R. A. 614. To justify a decree the proof must be clear both as to the existence of the agreement and the terms. Equity will not enforce a contract in favor of an employer as against an employe which is against conscience ; Dalze]l v. Mfg. Co., 149 U. S. 315, 13 Sup. Ct. 886, 37 L. Ed. 749. And the contract must be mutual at the time it is entered into ; Dodson v. Hays, 29 W. Va. 577, 2 S. E. 415 ; and spe cific performance of a contract will not be enforced, unless the remedy as well as the obligation is mutual, and alike attainable by both parties to the agreement ; Iron Age Pub lishing Co. v. Tel. Co., 83 Ala. 498, 3 South. 449, 3 Am. St. Rep. 758; Gold v. Ins. Co., 73 Cal. 216, 14 Pac. 786. If one of the par ties cannot be specifically ordered to per form his part of the agreement there is not the requisite mutuality of remedy for equity to take jurisdiction ; General Electric Co. v. Mfg. Co., 144 Fed. 458; Fowler Utilities Co. v. Gray, 168 Ind. 1, 79 N. E. 897, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 726, 120 Am. St. Rep. 344; Soloman v. Sewerage Co., 142 N. C. 439, 55 S. E. 300, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391; contracts for personal services when lacking in mutuality of remedy cannot be specifically enforced ; Brooklyn Baseball Club v. McGuire, 116 Fed. 782 ; Taussig v. Corbin, 142 Fed. 660, 73 C. C. A. 656 ; but where there has been full perform ance by one party equity will enforce the contract against the other party ; Mississip pi Glass Co. v. Franzen, 143 Fed. 501, 74 C. C. A. 135, 6 Ann. Cas. 707; mutuality of remedy does not require that each party should have precisely the same remedy ; Phila. Ball Club, Ltd., v. Lajoie, 202 Pa. 210, 51 Atl. 973, 58 L. R. A. 227, 90 Am. St. Rep. 627.