ANDREWS v. SCOTTON—2 BLAND. 631

The Court has been authorized by an Act of Asembly to decree
.a sale of the mortgaged property; 1785, eh. 72, s. 1, 2 and 3; 1837,
eh. 292; but the provisions of that Act have been always con-
sidered as having merely introduced an additional remedy, and
not as having abrogated any pre-existing mode of relief, to which
the mortgagee was entitled, or to have altered the proceedings in
this Court on mortgages, in any other reapect whatever, and there-
fore, the mortgagee may now, notwithstanding the provisions of
that law, have a decree of foreclosure instead of a decree for a sale.
Aikinson v. Hatt, ante, 371, note. (n) If the creditor files a bill on the

(n) WARDROP v. HALL,—This bill was filed on the 21st of November, 1748,
by John Wardrop against Joseph Hall, to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of
land, which the defendant had given to the plaintiff to secure the payment
of three hundred pounds sterling, with interest. The defendant by his
answer admitted the mortgage, and that no part of the principal or interest
of the debt had been paid; but alleged that the mortgaged land was an ample
security for the debt, the improvement thereon alone being worth, at a
moderate valuation, at least six hundred pounds sterling; and therefore he
prayed to be allowed a reasonable time to redeem, &c.

OGLE, C., May, 1740.—It appearing to this Court that a sum of three hun-
dred pounds sterling was, on the 17th day of October, 1747, lent and ad-
vanced by the complainant to the defendant on the said mortgaged premises,
as a security for the repayment of the said sum, with the interest thereof.
It is therefore Decreed, that in case the defendant doth not, on or before the
30th day of September next, pay unto the complainant the said sum of three
hundred pounds sterling, with lawful interest for the same, as also the costs
expended by the complainant in this suit, the said defendant, and all claim-
ing by, from, or under him, shall be forever, and they are hereby from
thenceforth debarred and foreclosed of all manner of equity of redemption
or reclaim in and to the said mortgaged premises; and that the said com-
plainant have an absolute estate in the same, free from all redemption and
equity and power of redemption of, in, or by the said defendant, his heirs or
assigns, or any person or persons claiming by or under them.—Chancery
Proceedings, lib. J. R. No. 5, fol. 518.

HUNTER v. GAUNT.—This bill was filed by Adam Hunter, heir-at-law and
devisee of James Hunter, late of the State of Virginia, deceased, and Robert
Purviance and Samuel Purviance, of Baltimore County, administrators with
the will annexed of the said James Hunter, against Fielder Gaunt, of Fred-
erick County, to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant answered, and the
case was brought before the Court.

HANSON, C., 37th February, 1790.—This cause standing for hearing, and
the Court having duly considered the bill, answer, proofs, and exhibits
therein; it is Decreed, that the said defendant do and shall pay and satisfy
to the complainants, Adam Hunter and Robert Purviance, the surviving ad-
ministrator of the said James Hunter, the sum of £6,294 1s. 1d. current
money, with interest from the 13th of December, 1769, together with all
costs by the complainants in this suit expended before the 13th day of
October next ensuing; or that the defendant pay to the complainants afore-
said, on the said 13th day of October, between the hours of 10 and 12 in the