DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND. 333

stated in the bill; but deny, that they had collected, or were then
able to collect, the whole amount of the purchase money from the
choses in action which had been assigned to them; that they had
offered to convey, and were then, and always had been ready to
execute a conveyance of the legal title, on receiving the whole
amount of the purchase money; and that some of the choses in
fiction, which had been assigned to them, and from which they had
been utterly unable to collect anything. the\ then held, and were
ready to re-assign to the plaintiff.

* After which the parties, by agreement, admitted sundry
facts and some exhibits which had been previously filed; and 357
the case was brought before the Court for final hearing.

BLAND, C., 14th January, 1825.—The arguments of counsel hav-
ing been heard in this case, the proceedings were read and con-
sidered.

It appears, that Campbell & Ritchie being seized of two tracts
of land, sold them, clear of all incumbrances, to Dorsey, for the
sum of fourteen hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, to
bear inteiest from the eighth day of June, 1815, when the pur
chaser was put into possession, until paid. So far the case admits
of no difficulty.

As to the manner in which Dorsey was to make payment to
Campbell & Ritchie, the receipt or agreement of the 12th of July.
1810, is expressed in these words: "And for which they are to be
paid in bonds, notes, and other claims endorsed by C. Dorsey.
Esq." And the assignment of the same date, made by Dorsey, is
expressed in these words: " 1 hereby assign unto Henry Chapman,
Esq., for the use of Campbell & Ritchie, the above cause of ac-
tion, which are supposed to be correct, with an understanding and
agreement, that I am responsible for their eventual solvency." The
general expressions, "to be paid in bonds, notes, and other
claims," without any distinct specification, can only be understood
as an indication of the character of the fund which was to be
placed by the plaintiff under the legal command of the defend-
ants to the full amount of the purchase money. If Dorsey had
failed or refused to place in the hands, or at the disposal of Camp-
bell & Ritchie, chosen in action to the full amount of the purchase
money, then he would have been liable for the whole, or pro tanto.
on the ground of a non-compliance with his contract. If there
had been nothing added to this general specification of the fund,
out of which payment was to be made, the contract might have
been considered in the light of an exchange or barter of one article
of value for another, deemed to be of equal value,—a conveyance
of land in consideration of an assignment of choses in action only,
without the further responsibility of the assignor.