334 HAMMOND v. HAMMOND.

instance, and for the benefit of a bond creditor of his ward's
ancestor, be compelled in equity to account for the rents and pro-
counsel for the petitioners. No answer has been put in by Jesse Hollingsworth and
wife; but the petition has been approved by counsel on their behalf; and there is
an agreement as to the testimony to be read on the hearing. At the present term
the said petition was argued, and has since, together with the testimony taken, and
the proceedings under the bill filed on the 1st of February, 1805, as far as they re-
lated thereto, been considered.

The Chancellor is of opinion that the relief prayed for in the said petition ought
not to be granted. The cases which were cited to shew the practice in England,
are not considered as applicable to sales under the decree of this court, in which the
purchase money is directed to be secured by bonds bearing interest from the day of
sale; and in which the possession is generally delivered; and even in cases where
possession has not been obtained until the removal of the crop, that circumstance
has not been viewed as a bar to the payment of interest, without an express
agreement to that effect. But the purchasers have been supposed to regulate
their prices accordingly. There may be cases in which a reduction of the interest
might be ordered or decreed, as where the possession could not be obtained, and the
injury could be estimated with certainty. But, in such cases, the steps taken by
the parties, the time of their application, and all other circumstances, would be
taken into consideration; and with regard to the actual possession, the person who
held it might, probably, be made to account for it, and make up the deduction to
the other party.

In this case, the purchasers have not been deprived of the possession; nor have
Jesse Hollingsworth and wife been benefitted by it. Without giving any opinion
as to the merits of their claim, it may be said that they had a right to submit it to
the decision of this court; for which, as far as the purchasers were incommoded by
being made parties to the suit, they might have been recompensed in the allowance
of their costs. It appears, also, some injury or Joss may have been sustained by
them in consequence of uncertainty as to their title which the said suit occasioned,
and the influence which if had as to the improvements; but it is considered that it
was in their power, by a timely application, to have got rid of this inconvenience
by getting released from their purchases; or, at least, that they ought to have made
their application, at that time, by bill or petition, instead of resting their claims
upon the statements made in their answers. And upon such a bill or petition, their
title to relief, and the manner of granting it, might have been examined and decided.
It is true, they stated in their answer that they had, by the conduct of the complain-
ants Hollingsworth and wife, been deprived of the benefit of making any improve-
ments on the lots so purchased; and they prayed that they might not be compelled
to pay interest on their respective purchases; on which part of their answer no
order was taken.

The agreement for taking the testimony is certainly a very favourable one for the
petitioners, as they are enabled to give evidence on their own behalf, and to state,
not only the facts which took place, but their opinions and determinations as to the
property, some of which could be known only to themselves. But white the fullest
credit is given to the facts which are thus admitted in evidence, the Chancellor can-
not ground his decision on their statement of their willingness to relinquish their
purchases rather than pay interest; or, on the impressions which they have taken
up on the subject. And although there is in the testimony, a difference in the cases,
BO that the relief, prayed, if extended to some, might not be given to others, yet
there is not, in any of them, such a plain ground of equity as would justify the