(r) 6 W. R. 188, where, how-ver, specific performance was refused on other grounds.

Dyer v. Pulteney, Barn. Ch. 100. 169, 170; Shaw v. Foster, L. E. 5 H. L. 821, 333, 338, 339, 350, 357, 358; and Bee South Eastern Rail. Co. v. Knott, 10 Hare, 122; Fenwick v. Bulman, L. R. 9 Eq. 165, where note that Browne v. London Necropolis Co. was not. cited: Government of Newfoundland v. Newfottndtand Rail. Co., 13 App. Gas, 199, 210 - 213.

(i) Above, p. 370.

Here it may be mentioned that contracts for sale of laud are specifically enforceable, not only against the vendor's representatives in law and his assigns, who have or are taken to have notice of the contract, but also, as a rule, against all persons having any estate or interest in the land sold which would be displaced by the vendor's conveyance in pursuance of the contract (y). Thus, a contract for sale by a joint tenant of his share of the land is specifically enforceable against the other joint tenants claiming the estate by survivorship, the contract for sale operating in equity as a severance of the joint tenancy (z). And a contract for sale properly entered into by a trustee for or with power of sale is so enforceable against the cestui-que-trusts (a); but this is not the case if the circumstances were such as to make it a breach of trust for the trustee to enter into the contract (b). And where a trustee authorised to invest the trust funds in the purchase of land has entered into a contract of purchase in such circumstances as to constitute a breach of trust, the contract is not specifically enforceable by the vendor against the cestui-que-trutsts, notwithstanding that they have been in possession of the land under the contract or with the vendor's leave, and the vendor's only remedies to obtain payment of the purchase money are to sue the trustee at law and to enforce his vendor's lien (c).

Contract specifically enforeeable against persons whose estate would be displaced by a conveyance.

(u) Above, n. (s), p. 571.

(x) Fry, Sp. Perf. Sec. 922 sq., 3rd ed.

(y) 2 Dart, V. & P. 997, 5th ed.; 1117, 6th ed.; 1031, 7th ed.; see above, pp. 538, 539.

(z) Hinton v. Hinton, 2 Ves. sen. 631, 634; Brown v. Raindle, 8 Ves. 256, 257.

(a) Shannon v. Bradstreet, 1 Sch. & Lef. 52; Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. 292, 314; Dowell v. Dew, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 345; above, pp. 256 sq.

(b) See Mortlock v. Buller, 10 Ves. 292, 313: White v. Cuddon, 8 Cl. & Fin. 766; Maw v. Top. ham, 19 Beav. 576, 578.

(c) Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Pinney, 1899. 2 Ch. 729, 190.), 2 Ch. 736. From what was said in the judgments in this case it appears that the vendor would not have had any remedy to obtain payment of the purchase money from the cestui-que-trusts or out of the trust fund if the contract had not been a breach of trust.