332 DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted
is hereby dissolved.

After which testimony was taken and the case brought before
the Court on a final hearing; when it appearing, that the plaintiff
had failed to sustain his case by proof, by a decree passed on the
4th of November, 1829, the bill was dismissed with costs.

356 * DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.—PURCHASER UNDER A FIERI FACIAS.

A purchased of B a tract of land, for which A stipulated to pay in bonds
and notes endorsed by him. and for the eventual solvency of which he
should be responsible. Held, that A must deliver to B such choses in
action within a reasanable time; but could not do so after he had filed
his bill against B, for a specific performance: And that B must use due
diligence in collecting the chases in action so put into his hands: and
should he allowed all proper expenses, to be deducted from the sums
collected.

On a bill for specific performance, where the agreement is admitted or
proved as set forth in the answer, no cross bill is necessary, but a decree
may be passed against each party according to the extent of his lia-
bility—against the one directing him to convey the estate; and against
the other ordering him to pay the purchase money.

The mode in which a purchaser of land under a fieri facias from this Court
may obtain possession, as directed by the Act of 1825. ch. 103. (CM

This bill was filed on the Kith of June, 1823. by Clement Dorsey
against James Campbell and John Ritchie, to enforce the specific
performance of an agreement. The bill states, that Henry Ander-
son had conveyed to the defendants two tracts of land in Charles
County, which lands they had sold and contracted to convey, clear
of all incumbrances, to this plaintiff; that as a means of making
payment for the lands, it was agreed, that the plaintiff should
assign to the defendants certain debts and choses in action; that
he made the assignments accordingly, upon which the defendants
had made collections and recovered judgments to the whole
amount of the purchase money; and yet. that they had refused to
execute and deliver a deed conveying the legal title of those lands
to the plaintiff. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed, that the de-
fendants might be ordered to convey the lands according to the
terms of the agreement, and for general relief.

The defendants Campbell & Ritchie, on the 6th of December.
1823, put in tbeir answer, in which they admit the contract as

(a) See Morrill v. Gelston, 32 Md. 116.