This is аn action of ejectment brought by plaintiff to recover the possession of the south ten acres of a twenty-five-acre tract of land in Orange County. The defendant answered, denying plaintiff’s ownership and right of possession, and filed a cross-complaint, in which he sought a decree specifically enforcing the performance of a contract between himself and one Sisson, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, for the conveyance by Sisson to defendant of the ten-acre parcel in dispute. It is alleged that рlaintiff bought subject to this contract, and that its terms have been fully performed on defendant’s part.
The court made findings in accordance with the allegations of the cross-complaint, and entered a judgment denying the plaintiff any relief, and requiring him to execute a deed conveying to the defendant the tеn acres in controversy. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
In a prior action between the same parties the plaintiff sued to quiet his title to thе twenty-five acres, of which the property here involved is a part. The judgment there rendered in favor of defendant was reversed by this court.
(Kaiser
v.
Barron, ante,
p. 474, [
No answer can be made to the appellant’s contention that the defendant (cross-complainant) failed to establish a right *790 to specifiс relief in that he did not allege or prove that the plaintiff had received an adequate consideration for the contract, or that it was as tо him just and reasonable. (Civ. Code, sec. 3391.) The cross-complaint does not allege in general terms the adequacy of the consideration or the fаirness of the contract, nor does it set forth facts which would justify the inference that these conditions existed. There is no allegation of the value of the ten acres agreed to be conveyed, or of the value of the services to be performed as a consideration for the conveyаnce, nor is there any proof on these subjects.
That such allegation and proof are prerequisites to the granting of a decree of spеcific performance is thoroughly settled. “A court of equity must be satisfied that the claim for a deed is fair and just and reasonable, and the contract еqual in all its parts, and founded upon an adequate consideration, befоre it will interpose this extraordinary assistance.”
(Bruck
v.
Tucker,
It is true that the court made a finding that “the terms and conditions of said contract and the consideration therefor were fair and reasonable.” But this finding, regardless of the fact that it is without the issues, is not supported by any evidence.
The plaintiff’s demurrer to the cross-complaint should, therefore, have been sustained. It will not be necessary to consider other points made by appellant.
The judgment is reversed with directions to the court below to sustain the demurrer to the amended cross-complaint and for further proceedings.
Angellotti, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.