The relief sought by the complainant, is the specific performance of a contract relating to land. The case comes into this Court by appeal from an interlocutory order made in the Court below, granting an injunction against the defendant, restraining him from proceeding in a pending action of ejectment, to recover from the complainant the possession ■of the land in controversy. The motion for the injunction was made after the coming in of the answer, and, by the rules of -equity pleading, it must be founded upon the merits confessed in the answer; Adams, Eq. 359. It has become necessary, therefore, for us to consider, whether the equity confessed is sufficient to continue the injunction to the final hearing.
It appears from the answer, that the defendant, as trustee under a deed in trust, sold the land in question, at public auction, on the 22nd day of January, 1863. The sale was for Confederate money, and the terms were cash. The complainant, the widow of the trustor, bid five hundred dollars, and. as *292 no other bid was made, she was declared the purchaser. The- cash was not paid at the sale, but about ten or twelve months-thereafter, she offered to pay the money and take a deed for the land. During this period of delay, Confederate money had depreciated to less than half its value at time of sale.
These are the principal facts set forth in the answer as to-this part of the case, and we must consider whether they show an equity, which ought to- be specifically enforced. The complainant did not comply with her part of the contract in paying
cash,
which must have been important to the defendant, or he would not have sold for
cash.
Trust sales are usually made-on a credit, — cash gales are made to meet sudden emergencies. In equity, time is not generally of the essence of a contract for-the payment of money; but in a case like this, where the money was needed for immediate use, and was to be paid in a currency which was rapidly depreciating, the question of time-becomes really material. The price bid for the land was not: one fourth of its real value, and this delay of the complainant; for twelve months, ought to deprive her of the relief she seeks; in a Court of Equity.
Perkins
v.
Wright,
3 Har. & McHen. 324;
Garnett
v.
Macon,
This Court cannot estimate the damages of the defendant,, so as to afford him adequate compensation, and the fulfilment of the complainant’s part of the contract cannot be secured, as. Confederate money is now utterly worthless. It is a well-established rule of Courts of Equity to refuse specific performance, when the contract cannot be mutually enforced; Adams,. Eq. 82. If the enforcement of this contract was practicable,, its specific performance would be unjust and inequitable to the. defendant, and the trust creditors whom he represents. The complainant also violated the contract, and it would be a. strange equity to give her all the benefit of its enforcement.
It also appears from the answer, that the complainant, at the sale, entered into an agreement with William H. Burch, a creditor largely secured in the deed in trust, that, if he would not bid against her, he might have two-thirds of the land. The
*293
-commendable spirit of kindness and sympathy, which is always .-shown to a widow at the sale of her deceased husband’s estate, gave her great advantage as a bidder, and she should hav.e been therewith content, and not have entered into a bargain ’to stifle bidding, which the law regards as a fraud. In
Smith
v. Greenlee,
Per Curiam. Injunction dissolved.