634 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

owned by Scotton at the time of his death, has he proved that those
roods of land were the inducement to the purchase. The sale
made by the trustee, is therefore, ratified and confirmed, and the
petition dismissed with costs.

From this order, Anderson appealed; and no objection being
made, the Court of Appeals, on the 16th of July, 1825, affirmed
the Chancellor's order.

After which, the trustee Foulke, by his petition, on affirmation
filed on the 12th of January, 1826, stated, that he had served a
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, on Anderson, and
had demanded of him payment, and that he should complete his
purchase, which he had refused to do. Whereupon, the trustee
prayed for an attachment.

Upon which, on the next day, an attachment was ordered as
prayed, returnable to the first day of March term then next. The
writ was issued accordingly, and Anderson having been brought
before the court under it, the trustee prayed that he might be
committed.

But Anderson had previously, on the 16th of March, 1826, put
in his answer on oath, in which he alleged that it did not appear,
by the trustee's report, that he, Anderson, was the purchaser of
the land; that in consequence of the irregularity of the proceed-
ings, a good title could not be conveyed to him by the trustee;
that he, Anderson) had not been put into possession of the land,
and he believed that the trustee could not give him the possession,
the land being in the occupation of a certain Joseph Marriott;
that a copy of the decretal order of the Court of Appeals had not
been served on him, Anderson; that he was unable to comply
with the terms of the decree, and that the Court of Chancery had
no power to give the relief asked for by the trustee.

17th March, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petition of Foulke,
the trustee, with the answer thereto of Anderson, the purchaser,
standing ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having
been heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

It does not sufficiently appear that Anderson has ever been
called upon, under any order of this court commanding him to pay
to the trustee, or bring into this court the sum of money which he
contracted to pay for the land sold to him, as mentioned in the
proceedings; therefore, without intimating any opinion as to any
other matter urged or suggested by the counsel on either side, the