602 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND.

served on him, Anderson; that lie was unable to comply with the
terms of the decree, and that the Court of Chancery had no power
to give the relief asked for by the trustee.

BLAND, C., 17th March, 1826.—The petition of Foulke, the trus-
tee, with the answer thereto of Anderson, the purchaser, standing
ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been
heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

It does not sufficiently appear that Anderson has ever been
called upon, under any order of this Court commanding him to
pay to the trustee, or bring into this Court the sum of money
which he contracted to pay for the land sold to him, as mentioned
in the proceedings; therefore, without intimating any opinion as
to any other matter urged or suggested by the counsel on either
side, the * Chancellor conceives that Anderson must be dis-
635 charged from his present detention.

Whereupon it is ordered, that Samuel Anderson be, and he is
hereby discharged, without costs, from any further detention under
the attachment by virtue whereof he has been brought before this
Court.

And it is further ordered, that the said Samuel Anderson pay
unto the said Ashur Foulke, the trustee, or bring into this Court
the sum of $1,540, with interest thereon from the 28th day of
August, 1822, until paid or brought in, being the amount of the
purchase money of the land sold to him, as in the proceedings
mentioned, on the 17th day of April next, or shew good cause to
the contrary. Provided that a copy of this order, together with a
copy of the said petition of Foulke, filed on the 12th of January
last, be served on the said Anderson on or before the 25th instant.

By the answer of Anderson, on oath, filed on the 28th of March,
1826, shewing cause against this order, he states that the trustee,
as appeared by the agreement of the 28th of August, 1822, under-
took to make an absolute sale of the land, in violation of the de-
cree, by which any sale to be made by him required the confirma-
tion of the Chancellor; that he, Anderson, was not returned as
the purchaser by the report of the trustee; that the quantity of
the land was not ascertained by the trustee's report; that the land
shewn to Anderson as the property to which the trustee could give
title differed materially from that which the trustee was authorized
to sell; that Auderson gave no bond or note for the payment of
the purchase money; nor has any been asked of him as was re-
quired by the decree; that he had never obtained possession of
the land, and believed that he could not obtain possession, it being
in the occupation of a certain Joseph Marriott; that he, Anderson,
was unable to comply with the terms of the sale, and that he could
not, in equity, be compelled to execute the contract; or, if the