Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 336

                                
336                   WARD V. STUART.          [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
be clearly stated in the pleadings; that they evidence with reasonable
certainty the intention of the contracting parties in relation to
that which is done or to be done by both parties in consummation
of the agreement.
The contract cannot be presumed to be clearer or more specific,
nor the performance of it more complete, than they are alleged to
be in the petition, and more especially is this true when special
demurrers are urged and sustained, on the ground of want of certainty
in reference to matters affecting the sufficiency of the contract,
and in reference to its performance, and the party whose
pleading has been held to be insufficient declines to amend.
Before a court of equity will enforce specific performance of a
contract to convey land for which a party seeking its aid has agreed
to pay in money, labor or in some other manner, it is necessary to
inform the court, by proper pleadings, what sum of money was to be
paid, what labor performed, or what and how much of other property
was to be delivered in payment; and it should be further made
to appear that the money had been paid, labor performed or other
thing delivered, or some good reason shown why such things had
tnot been done, accompanied with at least a tender of whatever
might be still due.
In this case the appellant avers that his father promised to convey
to him one-half of the land "if he would take charge of the
,same and labor on the same and manage the labor, and superintend
the work and labor done on the farm, and improve the place or land,
. . . and plaintiff did go on said land and did and performed all
of his said agreement on his part, and said Stephen S. Ward did
receive the crops both of corn and cotton raised on said land, etc.,
.   and (plaintiff) cleared and improved land thereon and built
houses and outhouses and fences thereon, and plaintiff faithfully
worked for more than two years, and only quit then to work and
labor for said S. S. Ward in other business at his request."
How long, by the contract, was the appellant to take charge of
and manage the land and labor? What improvements was he to
have made?
Of these matters the petition gives no information. It however
avers compliance with the contract for the period of two years.
That there was a compliance with the contract for even two years
rwas a conclusion of the pleader, and the statement of the acts performed
could not be known by the court to be a compliance with'
the contract, the particular terms of which were not stated. Waterman
on Specific Performance, 96.