DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND. 335

In obedience to this order, the auditor, on the 16th of Septem-
ber, 1825, made a report, in which he stated the amount of the
balance then due from the plaintiff to the defendant; to which the
plaintiff filed no exceptions.

BLAKE, C., 29th March, 1826.—This case standing ready for
hearing, and having been submitted, the proceedings were read
and considered.

This is a bill for a specific performance of a contract between
the plaintiff and defendants. From the agreement, as stated and
admitted, it appears, that each party was bound to perform some-
thing for the benefit of the other. The plaintiff bound himself to
pay to the defendants the whole amount of the purchase money;
and the defendants bound themselves, on being so paid, to convey
to the plaintiff the two specified parcels of land. It now appears
that a part of the purchase money is still due; and that no con-
veyance of the legal title has been yet executed and delivered. In
cases of this kind, according to the ancient course of the Court,
it was necessary to file a cross-bill, in order that each party might
be decreed to perform that to which he had bound himself. But
this circuitous and expensive course has, of late, been dispensed
with in all cases where the plaintiff, by his bill, offers to perform
the agreement; and it is admitted, or set out in the answer, and
proved as thus set forth by the defendant. No cross-bill has for
some time past been deemed necessary, either in England or in
Maryland, in such cases; but a decree is passed in favor of each
party for that to which he is entitled; upon the ground, that the
whole matter in controversy has thus been well and sufficiently
brought before the Court, put in issue, and considered by such an
original bill, answer and proofs. Fife v. Clayton. 13 Ves. 546;
Higginson v. Clowes, 15 Ves. 525. (b)

(b) W ATKINS v. WATKINS.—This bill was filed on the 7th of November, 1798,
by Tobias Watkins. an infant, by William Kilty his guardian. It states,
that some time before the year 1770. an agreement was entered into between
the late father of the defendant with the late father of the plaintiff, whereby
the defendant's father contracted to convey to the plaintiff's father, a cer-
tain tract of land, and accordingly put the plaintiff's father into possession,
which has been held by him and the plaintiff, his only son and heir, ever
since; and that the purchase money has been paid, but the legal title has
not been conveyed; that the defendant brought an action of ejectment for
the recovery of the land, and threatens to turn the plaintiff out of posses-
sion. Prayer for a specific performance, and that the defendant may be
restrained by injunction from proceeding further at law. An injunction
bond was filed. Injunction granted. The defendant answered, and proofs
were taken. &c.

HANSON, C., 27th March, 1802.—This cause being submitted on the argu-
ments in writing of the counsel, the bill, answer, depositions, with the said