Specific performance of a contract to sub scribe for stock in a corporation to be incor porated was refused ; Strasburg R. Co. v. Echternacht, 21 Pa. 220, 60 Am. Dec. 49 ; but was decreed In Austin v. Gillaspie, 54 N. C. 261, on the ground that the remedy at law was inadequate, and it was refused because there was an adequate remedy at law in His sam v. Parrish, 41 W. Va. 686, 24 S. E. 600, 56 Am. St. Rep. 892 ; and Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. 244, 15 Am. Rep. 97. It was de creed where the stock was necessary to the corporation in order that the purpose of its charter might be fulfilled ; Norristown Trac tion Co. v. Slingluff, 7 Montg. Co. Law Rep'r (Pa.) 83; and where the stock was in pay ment for work done which gave it its only value, and it had no general market value ; Altoona Electrical, Engineering & Supply Co. v. R. Co., 126 Fed. 559.
Equity will not enforce a contract to sell cows, where there is no evidence of distinc tive or peculiar value ; Kane v. Luckman, 131 Fed. 609 ; it will enforce a contract of insurance which is in the nature of an agree ment to grant an annuity ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Blair, 130 Fed. 971. A covenant for a renewal of a lease, which is indefinite as to the length of the term and rental to be paid, cannot be enforced specifi cally; Bamman v. Binzen, 65 Hun (N. Y.) 39, 19 N. Y. Supp. 627; nor a contract which is perpetual ; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393, 10 Sup. Ct. 846, 34 L. Ed. 385. Equity will not entertain a suit to enjoin vio lation of a continuous contract ; Berliner Gramophone Co. v. Seaman, 110 Fed. 30; 49 C. C. A. 99 ; nor will it enforce a contract which requires continuous supervision by the court ; United Cigarette Mach. Co. v. Wins ton Cigarette Mach. Co., 194 Fed. 947, 114 C. C. A. 583 ; York Haven Water & Power Co. v. York Haven Paper Co., 201 Fed. 270, 119 C. C. A. 508; even though its jurisdiction would obviate a multiplicity of suits ; Lone Star Salt Co. v. R. Co., 99 Tex. 434, 90 S. W. 863, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 828; contra, Taylor v. R. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 South. 574, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 307, 127 Am. St. Rep. 155, 14 Ann. Cas. 472, where contracts relating to the opera tion of railroads were specifically enforced ; but if a contractual relation has existed be tween the parties for nearly 50 years, equity will take jurisdiction to prevent a threatened termination of it ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pa. Co., 129 Fed. 849, 64 O. C. A. 285, 68 L.
R. A. 968.
A right to use S right of way under a traf fic agreement between two railroad compa nies will be enforced in equity ; Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 243, 34 L. Ed. 843 ; and a contract between railroad com panies for the joint use of a bridge and seven miles of track ; Union Pac. It. Co. v. R. Co., 51 Fed. 309, 2 C. C. A. 174; or a contract by which one had acquired the right to use a part of the other party's railroad line for 999 years ; Graud Trunk W. R. Co. v. R. Co., 141 Fed. 785, 73 C. C. A. 43. Option contracts for the purchase or sale of land may be en Watts v. Kellar, 56 Fed. 1, 5 C. C. A. 394; and the rule of non-enforcement for want of mutuality has no application to such an option contract; id. A written option giv en for a valuable consideration will be spe cifically enforced ; Marthinson v. King, 150 Fed. 48, 82 C. C. A. 360 ; absence of consider ation may be shown, notwithstanding the in strument is sealed ; Rude v. Levy, 43 Colo. 482, 96 Pac. 560, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 91, 127 Am. St. Rep. 123. Where the option has not been converted into a binding contract by ac ceptance according to its provisions, specific Performance thereof cannot be enforced ; Pol lock v. Brookover, 60 W. Va. 75, 53 S. E. 795, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 403.
Where time is of the essence of a contract, specific performance will not be decreed aft er the lapse of the time specified ; but it is otherwise when time is not of thz essence of the contract; Myers v. League, 62 Fed. 654, 10 C. C. A. 571.
Specific performance of a contract to give security for a debt may be decreed in some cases ; • as where a mortgage was released under an agreement to execute another mort gage to the releasor; Irvine v. Armstrong, 31 Minn. 216, 17 N. W. 343; and where the purchaser had agreed to. execute a mortgage for the purchase money to the vendor and refused to do so; Boston v. Nichols, 47 Ill. 353. It will be decreed of contracts to exe cute chattel mortgages ; Tiernan v. Granger, 65 351; Bernheimer v. Verdon, 63 N. J. Eq. 312, 49 Atl. 732.
Equity will not enjoin the running of over the main line of a railroad in or der to enforce a specific agreement where the rights of the public requiring uninter rupted service would be interfered with ; Taylor v. R. Co., 54 Fla. 635, 45 South. 574, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 307, 127 Am. St. Rep. 155, 14 Ann. Cas. 472.