ETCHISON v. DORSET, 537

cross bill. But according to the present course of proceeding, as
well in England as in Maryland, the court may if called on dis-
pense with a cross bill, and pass a decree upon the whole case,
as well in favour of the defendant as of the plaintiff; as that
the one convey the property, and the other pay the purchase
money.(a) But a decree to redeem may result in a foreclosure
without a cross bill to foreclose; as if a bill filed by a mortgagor
for redemption is by decree dismissed, because of the money not
being paid at the time directed by the decree to redeem, that ope-
rates as a foreclosure, and is equivalent to a decree for foreclo-
sure ;(b) but the dismission of such a bill merely for want of
prosecution has not that effect.(c)

It appears, that this case was submitted, and such a decree
prepared and presented to the Chancellor as the parties thought
proper to have passed without opposition or contest, which was
accordingly signed. A decree might have been passed against
the plaintiff commanding him to pay, as well as against the
defendants ordering them to perform their part of the contract by
conveying the property, as had been stipulated, on the payment of
the purchase money. But this decree is, according to the ancient
course, only in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
and therefore this petitioner can only obtain the relief he asks by
a bill in the nature of a cross bill, it being now entirely too late to
alter the decree in any manner whatever.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the said petition be and the same
is hereby dismissed with costs.

After which the other parties filed a bill, in the nature of a cross
bill, against Ephraim Utchison, for the amount of the purchase
money so ascertained to be due, and it was on the 28th of March
1829 decreed, that Etchison pay the balance then due, and upon
the payment thereof, that the plaintiffs execute a conveyance to
him for the land, &c.

(a) Dorsey v. Campbell, ante, 356.—(b) The Bishop of Winchester v. Paine,
11 Ves. 199.-(c) Hansard v. Hardy, 18 Ves. 460.

68