ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND. 615

have of him in that stage of the proceedings; for he cannot be
quickened before the report is confirmed absolutely. Anonymous,
2 Ves. Jun. 336. And should he tarn out to be insolvent, it is the
only effectual hold the Court will ever be able to take of him.
Consequently, the exacting- of a deposit from the purchaser is there
considered as a useful and proper precaution. Anonymous, 6 Ves.
513. If the purchaser refuses to comply with his contract, the
Court will, if required by a party interested, inquire whether he is
able to pay; and it' it should appear that lie is insolvent, or has not
the means of complying with his contract, the sale will be annulled,
the deposit forfeited, and a re-sale ordered. For, even at common
law, and between party and party, if, after being requested, the
vendee does not, within a convenient time, come and pay for, and
take away the goods purchased, the agreement will be dissolved,
and the vendor at liberty to sell them again to any other person.
Langfort v. Tiler. 1 Salk. 113. If, however, the purchaser is able,
and fails to comply, the Court will not suffer itself to be baffled,
but will, at the instance of a party interested, compel the pur-
chaser to comply by process of attachment for contempt.

The exercise of a similar summary power of coercion by this
Court against a tardy or unwilling purchaser, after the confirma-
tion of the sale, it has been repeatedly and strongly urged, is one
which is not within the scope of its jurisdiction. The exercise of
such an authority, it has been urged, is a very recent and equivo-
cal extension of the power of the Court of Chancery of England.
It has sometimes happened that a necessary and important power,
after having been called into action, and produced all the benefi-
cial effects required or expected, is suffered to slumber so long as
to drop almost into oblivion. Such, it would seem, has been, in
some degree, the fate, both in England and in this State, of this
power of coercing a purchaser under a decree, to comply with his
purchase.

In the year 1721, the Court of Chancery of England was pressed
* by a party interested to force a purchaser under a decree
to complete his purchase, and not to let him off by a mere 649
forfeiture of his deposit, although it amounted to nearly one-tenth
part of the purchase money. It was not even intimated that the
Court had not the power to do so. But it would seem that, in that
case, the purchase was made at a time when the nation was under
a general delusion as to the quantity of money in circulation, and
the value of property, and the purchaser had been thus induced
to give an unreasonably high price for the property in question.
The Chancellor, without expressing the least doubt as to his power
to use coercion in a summary way against the purchaser, or saying
any thing distinctly upon the point, said that: it was punishment
enough if the purchaser was made to lose his deposit, and satisfac-
tion enough to the seller if he was to have the benefit of keeping