DORSEY v. CAMPBELL. 359

of this case, it is hereby referred to the auditor, with directions to
state an account accordingly, preparatory to a final decree.

In obedience to this order, the auditor, on the 16th of September,
1825, made a report, in which he stated the amount of the balance
then due from the plaintiff to the defendants; to which the plaintiff
filed no exceptions.

29th March, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor-.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and having been submitted, the proceedings
were read and considered.

This is a bill for a specific performance of a contract between
the plaintiff and the defendants. From the agreement, as stated
and admitted, it appears, that each party was bound to perform
something for the benefit of the other. The plaintiff bound him-
self to pay to the defendants the whole amount of the purchase
money; and the defendants bound themselves, on being so paid,
to convey to the plaintiff the two specified parcels of land. It now
appears that a part of the purchase money is still due; and that no
conveyance of the legal title has been yet executed and delivered.
In cases of this kind, according to the ancient course of the court,
it was necessary to file a cross-bill, in order that each party might
be decreed to perform that to which he had bound himself. But
this circuitous and expensive course has, of late, been dispensed
with in all cases where the plaintiff, by his bill, offers to perform
the agreement; and it is admitted, or set out in the answer, and
proved as thus set forth by the defendant. No cross-bill has for
some time past been deemed necessary, either in England or in
Maryland, in such cases; but a decree is passed in favour of each
party for that to which he is entitled; upon the ground, that the
whole matter in controversy has thus been well and sufficiently
brought before the court, put in issue, and considered by such an
original bill, answer and proofs.(6)

(b) Fife v. Clay ton, 13 Ves. 546; Higginson v. Clowes, 15 Ves. 525.

WATKINS v. WATKINS,—This bill was filed on the 7th of November, 1798, by
Tobias Watkins, an infant, by William Kilty his guardian. It states, that some time
before the year 1770, an agreement was entered Into between the late father of the
defendant with the late lather of the plaintiff, whereby the defendant's father con-
tracted to convey to the plaintiff's father, a certain tract of land, and accordingly put
the plaintiff's father into possession, which has been held by him and the plaintiff,
his only son and heir, ever since; and that the purchase money has been paid, but
the legal title has not been conveyed; that the defendant brought an action of eject-
ment for the recovery of the land, and threatens to turn the plaintiff out of possession