282 FEDERAL RBPOKTEIt. �Pryery^ Gribble, 10 Chan. (Appeal Cases,) 539, inwhich most of the prior authorities are referred to. James, L. J., in substance, states the practice to be that any agreement of this kind involving a great number of details, some of which could not have been within the Bubject of the suit, cannot be specifically performed upon interloeutory application. That suit was one for the redemption of a mortgage of a brick-yard, and the parties entered into an agreement by which the de- fendant -was to receive ail moneys due to him on account of the concern, and pay ail he might owe, and guaranty the plaintiff against the payment thereof, the business to be car- ried on by defendant for a time, he paying ail expenses in connection therewith, and receiving ail moneys for sale of bricks, and accounting therefor, �James, L. J., further says : "An order to that elïect could not have been made in the suit at ail, nor could the court bave made the order that the defendant should hand over to the plaintiff ail deeds and other securities in bis possession, relat- ing to the brick-yard, or that both parties should execute ail necessary legal documents to give efïect to that agreement. It is a contract, the specifie performance of which is beyond the scope of this suit, and cannot be obtained exeept by a suit regularly instituted for that purpose. If this were a simple agreement between the parties to stay a suit, or have a bill dismissed, very likely the court ought to give effect to that as it would give efïect to any other agreement relating solely to the conduct and prosecution of the suit. But when these matters are mixed up with a great number of details, money to be paid, and acts to be performed, it is far beyond the scope, as it seems to me, of an interloeutory motion, and far outside the jurisdiction of this court on an interloeutory mo- tion. �In the present instance the arrangement entered into by tho parties in Deeember involved not only the settlement and dis- position of this suit, but of others pending in other tribunals, and the transfer of varions parcels of other property, both real and Personal, most of which were wholly without the present controversy, and could not, in any -way, bave been within tho ����
