HOFFMAN v. JOHNSON. 111

to the amount of the deficiency in the original tract, but to a much
greater extent. Whether the vendor can be permitted, considera-
bly, or in any degree, to enlarge the tract of land by a resurvey after
the contract of sale is entered into, and can compel the purchaser
to take and pay for such addition, is another and a very different
question from that under consideration; and one which it will not
now be necessary to determine.

But, in this case, the vendor, after ascertaining the deficiency,
has supplied it, only in part, by the addition of contiguous vacancy.
This mode of making up the deficiency subsisted as an incident to
the legal title at the time the contract was entered into by these
parties. The vendee, therefore, cannot be now permitted to reject
this incident, and claim a deduction for these acres of vacancy,
leaving the vendor to hold them as his separate estate. If the
vendor were not allowed, in this way, to make up the deficiency,
then the vendee would obtain the original tract together with, or
divested of this privilege of including these eighteen acres of con-
tiguous vacancy. In the first case, he might obtain them, by
means of his legal title, without paying for them; or on the other
hand, the vendor might have cast upon him a small inconvenient
scrap of land, which, from its situation, would be alike unsaleable
and unprofitable, unless in connexion with one or other of the
immediately adjacent tracts. But these eighteen acres have been
obtained from the State by the vendor as the holder of the legal
title to the original tracts, by virtue of a privilege incident to that
title, and as immediately contiguous to those tracts; they must,
therefore, pass from the vendor to the vendee as connected with,
and parcel of those tracts; and consequently, these tracts are not,
so far, deficient.

As to the residue, or the deficiency of twenty-two and a half
acres, it is now too late to claim an allowance for them, after the
whole amount of the purchase money has been voluntarily and
fully paid. Under all the circumstances of this case, the vendor
cannot now be called on to refund any part of the purchase money.

It appears, that the equitable interest which George Schnertzell
had obtained from the holders of the legal title has been fully and
entirely transferred to, and is now vested in John Hoffman, one of
the plaintiffs. And the representatives of the parties to the origi-
nal contract, having teen all of them made parties to this suit:

Decreed, that the defendants, by a good and sufficient deed
made, executed, and acknowledged according to law, transfer and