The opinion
ADAMS, J.:
Upon petition for certiorari under Rule 34 we review an order denying a motion to dismiss a bill seeking specific performance.
The question is whether the receipt, endorsement and cashing of the following check is a sufficient written contract to support a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell real estate:
“THE HILLSBOROUGH STATE BANK 63-98
Plant City, Fla. 2-29 1944 No.
PAY TO THE ORDER OF Mrs. Mary A. Chaney $100.00 One-hundred and xx/100....................DOLLARS
FOR cash payment on hbouse & lot, /s/ J. Martin Brown 701 So. Collins St. $900 bal. payable on possession”
Specific performance is an equitable remedy granted only in cases where the parties have actually entered into an agreement which is definite and certain in all its essential elements. There was no contract as shown by this bill. We grant certiorari and quash the order upon authority of Rhode v. Gallat, 70 Fla. 536 , 70 So. 471 ; Whitson v. Owens, 94 Fla. 1201 ,
*490
115 So. 512 ; Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. Field, 157 Fla. 261 , 25 So. (2nd) 663 .
So ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and BARNS, JJ., concur.