BURCH v. SCOTT.—1 BLAND. 103

the legal title to the original tracts, by virtue of a privilege inci-
dent to that title, and as immediately contiguous to those tracts;
they must, therefore, pass from the vendor to the vendee as con-
nected with, and parcel of those tracts; and consequently, these
tracts are not, so far, deficient.

As to the residue, or the deficiency of twenty-two and a half
acres, it is now too late to claim an allowance for them, after the
whole amount of the purchase money has been voluntarily and
fully paid. Under all the circumstances of this case, the vendor
cannot now be called on to refund any part of the purchase
money.

It appears, that the equitable interest which George Schnertzell
had obtained from the holders of the legal title has been fully and
entirely transferred to. and is now vested in John Hoffman, one
of the plaintiffs. And the representatives of the parties to the
original contract, having been all of them made parties to this
suit:

Decreed, that the defendants, by a good and sufficient deed
made, executed, and acknowledged according to law, transfer and
* convey unto the plaintiff', John Hoffman, his heirs and
assigns, in fee simple, all those several tracts of land in the 112
proceedings mentioned, called "Font's Delight,''and " The Re-
survey on Beauty," and all their interest in that other parcel of
land included by a warrant of resurvey on those tracts under the
name of "The Reunion." And it is further decreed, that Henry
Hoffman is hereby constituted and appointed trustee, under the
last will and testament of the late James Hunter; and that he, by
a good and sufficient deed, executed and acknowledged according
to law, convey unto the complainant, John Hoffman, all the legal
title of, in and to the said tracts of land. And it is further de-
creed, that the defendants pay unto the complainants their costs,
to be taxed by the register.

BURCH v. SCOTT.
VACATING AN ENROLLED DECREE.—BILLS OF REVIEW.—CHANCERY PRACTICE.

Where a party admitted, that be had obtained a decree by default for more
than was due; and did not allege, that he had since lost any of his testi-
mony: and it appeared that the defendant had negligently omitted
during a space of about five months to put in his answer; but averred
by bill on oath, that he had a good and available defence on the merits;
the decree was set aside, and the defendant let in to answer on payment
of costs, (a)

(a) Reversed in Burch v. Scott, 1 G. & J. 393, q. v.