MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 447

Therefore, it is ordered, that the sale to Elizabeth Mordock be
and the same is hereby rescinded; and the petitioner, William
Brewer be, and he is hereby deemed, taken, and in all respects to
be considered as the purchaser of the property in the proceedings
mentioned. And the trustee is directed, on the payment by him
of all the costs and commissions of this suit, to discount the bal-
ance of the amount of the purchase money from the amount of the
said William Brewer's claim.

After which William Brewer, by petition, stated that he had
complied with the order of the 9th of February, and therefore
prayed to have the possession of the property of which he had so
become the purchaser, delivered to him.

BLAND, C.. 11th March, 1829.—Ordered, that the said Elizabeth
Murdock forthwith deliver possession of the property in the peti-
tion mentioned to the said William Brewer, or shew good cause to
the contrary on the 28th instant; provided *that a copy of
this order, together with a copy of the foregoing petition, 469
be served on the said Elizabeth, on or before the 18th instant.

After which the matter standing ready for hearing, and the solici-
tors of the parties having been heard, and no sufficient cause hav-
ing been shewn why the prayer of the petition should not be granted,
it was on the 30th of March, 1829, ordered, that an injunction
issue commanding the said Elizabeth to: deliver possession of the
property to the said William Brewer. Which not having been
obeyed, a habere facias - possessionem was awarded, and he was put
into possession. Afterwards the auditor stated an account, which
was finally ratified on the 22nd of October, 1829, from which it
appeared, that there was stiSl a balance of the mortgage debt left
unpaid by the proceeds of the sales.

After this case had been thus terminated as against Elizabeth
Murdock, William Brewer, on the 20th of April, 1830, filed his
bill against Gilbert Murdock, in which Brewer stated, that under
the before mentioned decree of the 2nd of October, 1826, and order
of the 9th of February, 1828, he had purchased and become seized
of the tract of land in those proceedings mentioned; that this de-
fendant Gilbert Murdock had erected, and persisted in continuing
to erect, a fence, so as to include a part of the land so purchased
by him, this plaintiff; and that he had brought an action of tres-
pass quare clausum fregit against Gilbert Murdock to recover dam-
ages for the trespass so committed, which action was still depend-
ing. Upon which he prayed for an injunction to prohibit the de-
fendant "from continuing the said fence, aud_ enjoining him to
remove the said fence already erected;" and for such other relief