STRIKE'S CASE, 75

as it has been upon this occasion, (k) The principles of law, in
relation to this matter, belong to our code, but until lately, they

(k) Quynn v, Staines, 3 H. & McH. 128; Ford v. Phiipot, 5 H, & J, 3121 and Raw-

lings v. Stewart, ante, 22,

RAWLINGS v. CARROLL.—This bill was filed on the 13th of October, 1730, by
Aaron Rawlings, against Charles Carroll, Esq., Dr. Charles Carroll, John Digges,
and Francis Hall, executors of James Carroll, deceased. The bill states, that in
the year 1716, the plaintiff contracted to purchase of the testator, James Carroll,
a tract of land called Forest Farm,, for which he agreed to pay one hundred
pounds sterling, in two equal payments at the time specified; that the late James
Carroll gave to the plaintiff a bond, conditioned for the conveyance of the land, on
the payment of the purchase money, and the plaintiff gave to him his bond for the
payment of the purchase money at the times agreed upon; that afterwards, James
Carroll made his will, in which he appointed these defendants his executors, and
soon after died, without having conveyed the lands to the plaintiff according to the
terms of his contract; although the plaintiff had always been, and then was, ready and
willing, thereupon to pay the purchase money; and that the defendants had brought
suit on the bond given by the plaintiff for the purchase money, and were about to
enforce payment. Whereupon, the bill prayed, that the defendants might be directed
to convey the lands to him as stipulated by their testator; and that they might until
then be enjoined from proceeding at law The injunction was granted, and issued
accordingly.

The two Carrolls filed their answer, in which they admit the contract as stated,
and that they had brought suit on the bond for the purchase money. But they aver,
that their testator, according to the terms of his contract, had made a conveyance of
the land to the plaintiff, as appeared by copies of the deed and a receipt for it given
by the plaintiff, which they then exhibited with their answer; that they were the
principal and only acting executors; that the defendant, Digges, had meddled very
little with the estate, and the defendant Hall, had renounced the executorship.

To this answer the plaintiff put in a general replication. A commission was
issued, under which testimony was taken and returned; after which the case was set
down for final hearing.

May Term, 1736.—This cause coming to be heard before his excellency Samuel
Ogle, esquire, chancellor and keeper of the great seal, in presence of the counsel on
both sides, the complainant's bill, and the defendants' answer, and the whole pro-
ceedings thereon were read, and appeared to be as before set forth.

Whereupon, and upon hearing the bill and answer, and, the proofs taken in the
cause read, and what was offered by counsel on both sides, this court doth think fit,
and declare, that the defendants procure a conveyance from the heir at law of the
testator, agreeable to the conveyance which the complainant received from the tes-
tator, and gave his receipt for, or procure an act of assembly to confirm that said
deed, or such another, on or before the —— day of April; and that, upon the exe-
cution of such deed by the heir, or confirmation of such deed by act of assembly,
the complainant pay the consideration money, and the interest thereof from the daite
of the complainant's bond, mentioned in the bill of complaint; and in case such
deed cannot be had from the heir at law, or that an act of assembly cannot be pro-
cured for confirming such a deed as herein before mentioned, that the complainant
pay only the interest of the purchase money from the date of his bond, as a recom-
pense for the use of the land; and, that the judgment at law, and the injunction bond
oe deemed to be, and stand as security for the principal money and interest in case a