648 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

It is usual, in England, at the time of bidding, or of having the
biddings opened to be let in as a higher bidder, for the proffering
purchaser to make a deposite of a considerable amount of the pur-
chase money, by way of earnest. And this deposite is sometimes
said to be the only hold which the court has upon the purchaser;
and it is in truth, the only hold which it can have of him in that
stage of the proceedings; for he cannot be quickened before the
report is confirmed absolutely, (r) And should he turn out to be
insolvent, it is the only effectual hold the court will ever be able
to take of him. Consequently, the exacting of a deposite from
the purchaser is there considered as a useful and proper precau-
tion, (s) If the purchaser refuses to comply with his contract, the
court will, if required by a party interested, inquire whether he is
able to pay; and if it should appear that he is insolvent, or has
not the means of complying with his contract, the sale will be
annulled, the deposite forfeited, and a re-sale ordered. For, even
at common law, and between party and party, if, after being re-
quested, the vendee does not, within a convenient time, come and
pay for, and take away the goods purchased, the agreement will
be dissolved, and the vendor at liberty to sell them again to any
other person, (t) If, however, the purchaser is able, and fails to
comply, the court will not suffer itself to be baffled, but will, at
the instance of a party interested, compel the purchaser to comply
by process of attachment for contempt.

The exercise of a similar summary power of coercion by this
court against a tardy or unwilling purchaser, after the confirmation
of the sale, it has been repeatedly and strongly urged, is one
which is not within the scope of its jurisdiction. The exercise of
such an authority, it has been urged, is a very recent and equivo-
cal extension of the power of the Court of Chancery in England.
It has sometimes happened that a necessary and important power,
after having been called into action, and produced all the beneficial
effects required or expected, is suffered to slumber so long as to
drop almost into oblivion. Such, it would seem, has been, in
some degree, the fate, both in England and in this state, of this
power of coercing a purchaser under a decree, to comply with his
purchase.

In the year 1721 the Court of Chancery of England was pressed

(r) Anonymous, 2 Ves. jun. 336.-—(s) Anonymous, 6 Yes. 513.—(t) Langfort v.
Tiler, 1 Salk. 113.