304 DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.

is not the case of a sale of land under a decree. The relief which
the petitioners seek can only be obtained according to the course
of the common law, or in the manner prescribed by the late act of
assembly, (d)

This is the first application which has been made to the Chan-
cellor to enforce the delivery of possession according to the provi-
sions of this act. It is declared, that whenever any lands shall be
sold by virtue of any process of execution from the Court of Chan-
cery; and the debtor named in the process, or any other person
holding under such debtor by title subsequent to the date of the
decree shall be in actual possession of the lands so sold, and shall
fail or refuse to deliver possession of the same to the purchaser
thereof, the court, on the application of the purchaser, and on no
good cause having been shewn to the contrary by the said debtor,
or other person concerned within the first four days of the term
next succeeding that to which said process was returnable, shall
issue a writ in the nature of a writ of habere facias possessionem,
&c. commanding the sheriff to deliver possession of the said lands

decree, and as the nature of the case may require. Under which last part of the
clause the injunction may be modified to suit the particular case. In this case the
lands had been sold to satisfy a mortgage. Before the bill was filed, but after the
mortgage was made, the possessor had leased the lands of the mortgagor, for a term
of years yet unexpired, he had covenated to erect a mill which he had built, and
alleged that he besides made other permanent improvements. He objected that he
ought to have been made party, that he ought to be allowed for his lasting improve-
ments, and that having obtained the lease without notice of the mortgage, he had a
right to hold possession. But the purchaser taking the title of both plaintiff and
defendant, has obtained a right paramount to that of this occupying lessee who claims
under the defendant, who could give him no right in opposition to that of the mort-
gagee whose deed had been duly recorded. This lessee must seek reimbursement
for his improvements and other losses from his lessor in whose place he stood.
Whereupon it is ordered, that the possession be delivered; and that an injunction be
issued accordingly. _____

CHAPLINE v. CHAPLINE.—12th July, 1810.—KILTY, Chancellor.—The Chancel-
lor has not fully made up his mind as to the power of the court to grant the injunc-
tion herein prayed; but supposing it to exist, he is not satisfied that it would be
proper to exercise it at this time when it would be attended with the loss of the crop
growing on the land. But it is ordered that an injunction be issued, in the manner
which will then be directed, unless cause be shewn, or appear to the contrary during
the first four days of September term next: provided a copy of this order be served,
&c. before the 15th August next.

Ho sufficient cause having been shewn, an injunction was ordered on the 5th of
October following.

(d) 1825, ch. 103; 1831, ch. 41.