388 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

JOHN MOUSLEY ET AL.

vs. MARCH TERM, 1849.
EDWARD WILSON ET AL.

[ACT OF 1793, CH. 43.]

THE act of 179S, ch. 43, forbids the restoring the landlord to the possession of
the premises, when he is proceeding under that act, only when the title is
disputed or claimed by some person, in virtue of a right or title, accrued or
happening since the commencement of the lease.

[This bill was filed by the complainants, Rachel Mousley,
widow of Richard Simpers, his infant children, and heirs at
law, and John Mousley, the present husband of Rachel, to ob-
tain an injunction, and the specific performance of a contract
alleged to have been made (in writing it was believed) between
Edward Wilson, the defendant, and the said Richard Simpers,
deceased.

The bill stated, that on the 3d of December, 1842, Richard
L. Simpers contracted with Edward Wilson, for the purchase
of fifty acres of land in Cecil county, for $1500, to take effect
on the 26th of March, 1843; that in part payment of the pur-
chase money, he assigned to Wilson three single bills in his
favor, which were collected by the latter; that Wilson being
indebted to him on several notes, and on open account, he re-
leased him from their payment; and, that he entered upon the
land in pursuance of the agreement, on the 25th of March,
1843, and continued to reside thereon till his death in 1846;

that his widow, together with his children, continued to reside
thereon; and in the year 1847, (being ignorant other rights,)
she agreed to rent the land from Wilson for one year, at $30
rent; that notice was given her to quit at the expiration of that
time, and on her refusing to do so, steps were being taken, un-
der the act of 1793, ch. 43, to put her and the other complain-
ants out of possession; and, that Wilson, although offered the
balance of the purchase money, (of which a small portion was
still due,) on the execution of a deed for the land, had refused
to accede to the proposition. An injunction was, accordingly,