340 DORSET v. CAMPBELL.—1 BLAND.

* is not the case of a sale of land under a decree. The re-
364 lief which the petitioners seek can only be obtained accord-
ing to the course of the common law or in the manner prescribed
by the late Act of Assembly. 1825, ch. 103; 1831, ch. 41.

This is the first application which has been made to the Chan-
cellor to enforce the delivery of possession according to the provi-
sions of this Act. It is declared, that whenever any lands shall
be sold by virtue of any process of execution from the Court of
Chancery; and the debtor named in the process, or any other per-
son holding under such debtor by title subsequent to the date of
the decree shall be in actual possession of the lands so sold, and
shall fail or refuse to deliver possession of the same to the pur-
chaser thereof, the Court, on the application of the purchaser,
and on no good cause having been shewn to the contrary by the
said debtor, or other person concerned within the first tour days
of the term next succeeding that to which said process was return-
able, shall issue a writ in the nature of a writ of habere facias
possessionem, &c. commanding the sheriff to deliver possession of
the said lands * to the purchaser thereof; without any say-
365 ing or exception as to the then growing or unfinished crop
of the occupying tenant, which, in favor of agriculture and for the
benefit of the public, is almost always made by this Court as well
where the land is directed to be delivered by the decree itself to
a party, as where it is ordered to be delivered to a purchaser from

case the lands had been sold to satisfy a mortgage. Before the bill was
filed, but after the mortgage was made, the possessor had leased the lands
of the mortgagor, for a term of years yet unexpired, he had covenanted to
erect a mill which he bad built, and alleged that he besides made other per-
manent improvements. He objected that he ought to have been made party,
that he ought to be allowed for his lasting improvements, and that having
obtained the lease without notice of the mortgage, he had a right to hold
possession. But the purchaser taking the title of both plaintiff and defend-
ant, has obtained a right paramount to that of this occupying lessee who
claims under the defendant, who could give him no right in opposition to
that of the mortgagee whose deed had been duly recorded. This lessee
must seek reimbursement for his improvements and other losses from his
lessor in whose place he stood. Whereupon it is ordered, that the possession
be delivered: and that an injunction be issued accordingly.

CHAPLINE v. CHAPLINE.—KILTY, C., 12th July, 1810.—The Chancellor has
not fully made up his mind as to the power of the Court to grant the in-
junction herein prayed; but supposing it to exist, he is not satisfied that it
would be proper to exercise it at this time when it would be attended with
the loss of the crop growing on the land. But it is ordered that an injunc-
tion be issued, in the manner which will then be directed, unless cause be
shewn, to the contrary during the first four days of September Term next;
provided a copy of this order be served, &c. before the 15th August next.

No sufficient cause having been shewn, an injunction was ordered on the
5th of October following.