DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.

that the complainant Clement Dorsey do, on or before the twentieth
day of April next, pay to the defendants Campbell & Ritchie, or

in as aforesaid, or payment to him, or the levying of the said sum by execution; and
provided also, that if the said money be not brought in as aforesaid, the defendant at
his election shall either be entitled to the process of this court, on application to the
Chancellor to enforce the payment of the said sum, with interest from the said first
day, or shall be at liberty to have a writ or process from the court of law to obtain
possession of the said land by him recovered, as stated in the bill, the injunction
aforesaid notwithstanding. And the complainant shall be precluded from any relief
in this court on the agreement stated in his bill. Each party shall sustain his own
costs in this court and in the court of law.

LONG v. GORSUCH.—This bill was filed on the 9th of September, 1802, by John
Long against Richard Gorsuch; after which it was amended, introducing some new
matter, and making John Gorsuch also a defendant. From the original and amended
bill it appears, that on the 8th of November, 1800, the plaintiff Long entered into
articles of agreement with the defendant Richard Gorsuch, by which it was stipu-
lated, that Long should, in consideration of $1300, convey to Richard Gorsuch a
house and lot in the city of Baltimore; and that Richard Gorsuch should convey to
Long one hundred and fifty acres of land in Baltimore county, and all the grain then
growing on it valued at sixty dollars; and one cow at fourteen dollars; and at the
end of twelve months Richard was to pay Long the further sum of twenty-six dol-
lars; which was to be in full payment for the specified consideration of thirteen hun-
dred dollars. But if the tract of land should measure more than one hundred and
fifty acres, then Long agreed to pay at the rate of eight dollars per acre for all above
that quantity. And it was further agreed, that each of the parties was to put the
other into possession. The bill alleges, that possession had been exchanged and
given as agreed upon; but that the defendant Richard had, in fact, no more than a
mere equitable title at most, and that the legal title to the land was then in his father
the defendant John Gorsuch, who had been privy to the contract, and with a full
knowledge of it, had stood by, knowing of the valuable improvements made by the
plaintiff, without giving him notice, that he John then held the legal title. Upon
which the bill prayed for a specific performance of the contract, and for general
relief.

The defendants by their answers admitted the contract as set out, and averred,
that they were then competent, ready and willing to make a good legal title to the
tract of land sold; and in all respects to comply with the contract on the part of
Richard Gorsuch; and prayed, that the plaintiff might be compelled to convey the
house and lot as stipulated, and to pay for the excess in the tract of land according
to the terms of his agreement.

A commission was issued and proofs taken; and a survey was ordered, which was
executed, and a certificate and plot returned showing the number of acres contained
in the tract of land lying in Baltimore county; after which the case was brought on
for a final hearing.

18th March; 1815.—KILTY, Chancellor.-—This suit being then on the trial docket
was submitted at December term last by the defendant on an abstract filed.

It appears that the price of the lot in Baltimore, viz. $1300, was to be made up
by land in Baltimore county, estimated to contain 150 acres, and to amount to
$1200; and the other $100 in wheat in the ground, a cow, and $26 in money. And
for every acre exceeding 150, Long was to pay Gorsuch at the rate of eight dollars
per acre. The bin prays for a conveyance of the lands, or in case a good title can-

46