Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.

1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be pronounced by my brother Ramesam, and I entirely concur in it. I only add a few words of my own in order to bring out certain points which he has made with which I find myself in specific and emphatic agreement.

2. The first is that our opinion is directed to a concrete and isolated case, that of a suit by a purchaser of land for specific performance against his vendor of the contract for the sale of land entered into by his vendor; and is not to be considered as containing in gremio analogies which can be usefully applied to such subject-matters as vendors suits for specific performance, suits on mortgages, suits for maintenance, suits for the wrongful removal of surface trees or subterranean coal. A number of decisions have been cited to us on these and kindred topics. Some of them I think to be wrong, others very doubtful, but of all of them it appears to me to be enough to say that they do not directly bear on the point before us and that our decision leaves future discussion on such questions entirely at large.

3. Secondly, I am satisfied that a phrase like "suit for land" can