ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND. 625

York, a. purchaser may be compelled to complete his purchase; and
Chancellor Kent is reported to have said, "I have no doubt the
Court may, in its discretion, do it in'every case, where the previ-
ous conditions of the sale have not given the purchaser an alterna-
tive."

In this case it is quite apparent that procrastination and delay
are the objects of the purchaser, as he has taken every measure in
his power to prevent the ratification of the sale; and after the sale
was ratified, on appeal to this Court, has still refused to pay the
purchase money, and has driven the trustee to resort to the com-
pulsory power of the Court of Chancery to coerce payment. Under
these circumstances, we think it a fit case for the exercise of such
a power by that Court; although it is not intended * at pres-
ent to establish any general rule on the subject. There is 660
nothing in the objection that the quantity of land sold has not
been sufficiently ascertained. Order affirmed.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, stated, that the trustee Foulke
had died, and thereupon prayed that some other person might be
appointed in his stead.

BLAND, C., 1st March, 1S27.—The plaintiffs by their bill do not
profess to sue as well for the other creditors of Stephen -Scotton
as for themselves. From the facts which they set forth, it appears
that they were the holders of a vendor's lien to secure the payment
of the balance of the purchase money; and as such, in their pro-
ceeding to have the land sold for the payment of their claim, they
had no such common interest with the other creditors of Stephen
Scotton, as would enable them to sustain a creditor's suit for the ad-
ministration of his estate. Ellicott v. Welch, ante, 244; Hammond v.
Hammond, ante, 344. Yet from the manner in which the bill speaks of
the insufficiency of the personal estate; and on having made Asbur
Foulke, the administrator, a defendant, it may be inferred, that
the plaintiffs contemplated their bill as the commencement of a
creditor's suit. The decree of the 5th of April, 1822, by reciting
that the deceased, Stephen Scotton, did not leave personal estate
sufficient for the payment of his just debts; and by directing the
land to be sold for the payment of the claim of the complainants
and of such other debts of the deceased as should be established
to the Chancellor's satisfaction, evidently considers the proceed-
ing as a creditor's suit. But no notice has been directed to be
given to the creditors of the deceased to bring in their claims; nor
has any decree to account been passed against the administrator;
on the contrary, all claim against him, as well by the plaintiffs to
obtain satisfaction of their debt, as by these heirs to have the real
estate descended relieved, by the application of the personalty

40 2B.