DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND. 337

that the complainant Clement Dorsey do, on or before the twentieth
day of April next, pay to the defendants Campbell & Ritchie, or

until the bringing in as aforesaid, or payment to him, or the levying of the
said sum by execution; and provided also, that if the said money be not
brought in as aforesaid, the defendant at his election shall either be entitled
to the process of this Court, on application to the Chancellor to enforce the
payment of the said sum. with interest from the said first day, or shall be
at liberty to have a writ or process from the Court of law to obtain posses-
sion of the said land by him recovered, as stated in the bill, the injunction
aforesaid notwithstanding. And the complainant shall be precluded from
any relief in this Court on the agreement stated in his bill. Each party
shall sustain his own costs in this Court and in the Court of law.

LONG v. GORSUCH.—This hill was filed on the 9th of September, 1802. by
John Long against Richard Gorsuch: after which it was amended, intro-
ducing some new matter, and making John. Gorsuch also a defendant.
From the original and amended bill it appears, that on the 8th of Novem-
ber, 1800, the plaintiff Long entered into articles of agreement with the
defendant Richard Gorsuch. by which it was stipulated, that Long should,
in consideration of $1,300, convey to Richard Gorsuch a house and lot in the
City of Baltimore; and that Richard Gorsuch should convey to Long one
hundred and fifty acres of land in Baltimore County, and all the grain then
growing on it valued at sixty dollars: and one cow at fourteen dollars; and
at the end of twelve months Richard was to pay Long the further sum of
twenty-six dollars; which was to be in full payment for the specified con-
sideration of thirteen hundred dollars. But if the tract of land should
measure more than one hundred and fifty acres, then Long agreed to pay at
the rate of eight dollars per acre for all above that quantity. And it was
further agreed, that each of the parties was to put the other into possession.
The bill alleges, that possession had been exchanged and given as agreed
upon; but that the defendant Richard had, in fact, no more than a mere
equitable title at most, and that the legal title co the land was then in his
father the defendant John Gorsuch, who had been privy to the contract,
and with a fail knowledge of it. had stood by. knowing of the valuable im-
provements made by the plaintiff, without giving him notice, that he John
then held the legal title. Upon which the hill prayed for a specific perform-
ance of the contract, and for general relief.

The defendants by their answers admitted the contract as set out, and
averred, that they were then competent, ready and willing to make a good
legal title to the tract of land sold; and in all respects to comply with the
contract on the part of Richard Gorsuch; and prayed, that the plaintiff
might be compelled to convey the house and lot as stipulated, and to pay for
the excess in the tract of land according to the terms of his agreement.

A commission was issued and proofs taken; and a survey was ordered,
which was executed, and a certificate and plot returned showing the number
of acres contained in the tract of land lying in Baltimore County: after
which the case was brought on for a final hearing.

KILTY, C., 18th March, 1815.—This suit being then on the trial docket was
submitted at December Term last by the defendant on an abstract filed.

It appears that the price of the lot in Baltimore, viz. $1.300, was to be
made up by land in Baltimore County, estimated to contain 150 acres, and
to amount to $1,300; and the other $100 in wheat in the ground, a cow, and
$26 in money. And for every acre exceeding 150, Long was to pay Gorsuch

22 1 B.