442 MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

ing to the parties the effect of what was originally sworn with the
explanation of the supplemental answer. Curl-ing v. Townshend,
19 Ves. 630; Livesey v. Wilson. 1 Ves. & Bea. 149: Strange v. Col-
lins, 2 Ves. & Bea. 163; Edwards v. McLeary, 2 Ves. & Bea. 256.

After which, the plaintiff put in his general replication, com-
missions were issued, and testimony taken and returned.

BLAND, C.,2nd October, 1820.—This case standing- ready for
hearing, the counsel on both sides were fully heard, and the pro-
ceedings read and considered. It very satisfactorily appears,
from the proofs, that the contracts relied on by the plaintiff in his
bill, were deliberately and fairly made, and entered into in all re-
spects whatever. And it also appears, that the plaintiff is now
fully able to convey to the representatives of the late Gilbert Mur-
dock. Senior, a good and sufficient title to the property sold to him
according to the terms of the contract between them.

With regard to the allegation of the defendant, that the plain-
tiff had previously brought- another suit for the same cause, which
suit was then depending, it will be sufficient to observe, that on
adverting to the bill referred to, which was filed on the loth of
January, 1825, it appears upon the face of it, that it can only be
considered as an injunction bill to stay waste ; the prayer for a sale
being utterly incompatible with its statement, must, necessarily,
be considered as mere surplusage. And, rejecting the prayer for
a sale, it cannot, in anyway whatever, be considered as a bill for
a sale, or to foreclose a mortgage, which is the sole object of this
suit. * There is not, therefore, now, nor has there been at
464 any time depending in this Court, as is alleged, two suits
between these parties having the same object.

Whereupon, it is decreed, that Elizabeth Murdock, administra-
trix of Gilbert Murdock, deceased, pay to the plaintiff the sum of
$500, with interest thereon from the 27th of February, 1824, until
paid, and the costs of this suit on or before the second day of No-
vember next. And that on the said mortgage debt and costs
being paid, the plaintiff convey to the defendant all the term of
years yet to come in the lots in the proceedings mentioned. And
on the defendant failing to pay, as ordered, then the mortgaged
property to be sold for ready money, &c., &c.

From this decree the defendant appealed, and on the 25th of
June, 1828, it was affirmed, with costs.

The trustee made sale of a part of the mortgaged property, as
directed by the decree, and reported that he had sold the leasehold
lot to the plaintiff, on the 31st of July, 1828, for the sum of
$20, which sale was finally ratified. The purchaser, William
Brewer, then filed his petition, praying that the trustee might be