ANDREWS v. SCOTTON. 649

by a party interested to force a purchaser under a decree to complete
his purchase, and not to let him off by a mere forfeiture of his de-
posite, although it amounted to nearly one-tenth part of the pur-
chase money. It was not even intimated that the court had not
the power to do so. But it would seem that, in that case, the pur-
chase was made at a time when the nation was under a general
delusion as to the quantity of money in circulation, and the value
of property, and the purchaser had been thus induced to give an
unreasonably high price for the property in question. The Chan-
cellor, without expressing the least doubt as to his power to use
coercion in a summary way against the purchaser, or saying any
thing distinctly upon the point, said that it was punishment enough
if the purchaser was made to lose his deposite, and satisfaction
enough to the seller if he was to have the benefit of keeping it. (u)
Hence it may be inferred that the court considered itself as having
the power to proceed against the purchaser, but that it did not
think proper to do so in that case.

One of the most accurate of the English reporters, gives us the
following, as the words of Lord Hardwicke, delivered in the year
1748, in relation to this subject: 'the present,' says he, 'is a judi-
cial sale of the estate, which takes it entirely out of the statute,
(of frauds.) The order of the court was not interlocutory, but
made part of the decree; as it always is on the matter reserved,
though made at another day; and it includes as well the carrying
the purchase into execution, as the establishment of the charity;
amounting to a decree for the conveyance of the estate on one side,
and payment of the money on the other; who might be prosecuted
for a contempt in not obeying that order. And it is stronger than
the common case of purchasers before the master, who are cer-
tainly out of the statute; nor should I doubt the carrying into
execution against the representative, a purchase by a bidder before
the master, without subscribing, after confirmation of the master's
report, that he was the best purchaser; the judgment of the court
taking it out of the statute. But even in common cases, this
question may arise; as if the authority of an agent, who sub-
scribed for the bidder, not being admitted, cannot be proved.
Yet, if the master's report could be confirmed, it should be car-
ried into execution, unless some fraud; for this is all exclusive
of any defence that may still be set up on the other side.' (w)

(«) SavUe v. Savile, I P. Will. 745.—(w) Attorney-Genera! v. Day, 1 Ves. 2189.