650 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

In this case, the testator had bequeathed a certain sum of money
to be invested for charitable purposes, and on a reference to the
master to propose a scheme of investment, he had reported, that
the money should be laid out in the purchase of certain lands.
The report had been confirmed, and the object then was, to obtain
a specific performance of the order confirming the master's report.
As to which point, Lord Hardwicke is reported to have said, 'the
material consideration is, whether, as circumstances now stand,
considering the events and alteration of rights thereby, the court
ought to carry it into execution ? The general rule certainly is,
that this is discretionary in the court, but will not hold in the pre-
sent; for that is generally in cases, where there may be an election
of two remedies, by coming here for a specific performance, or by
action at law; whereas, here, there can be no remedy at law; all
arising under the acts of this court, from that order amounting to
a decree, So, that if this court does not carry it into execution,
it cannot be at all; yet, whether other remedy or not, if there are
strong and material objections against it, the court ought not to
do it.'

Hence, it appears to have been the decided opinion of Lord
Hardwicke y long before our revolution, not only that a purchaser,
after the sale had been ratified, might be compelled to pay the pur-
chase money by process of attachment for contempt; but that there
was, in fact, no other remedy; since it is clear, that no action at
common law, could be maintained against the purchaser, grounded
merely on the order in chancery confirming the sale. And this
was cited by Lord Eldon, in 1805, with approbation, as being
entirely sound in its principles, (x)

A doubt was expressed upon this subject, in a case on the equity
side of the Court of Exchequer, in the year 1793, when, on the
court's being referred to a similar proceeding in chancery, which
had taken place in the year 1787, an order was made, after the
confirmation of the sale, that the purchaser should be compelled to
complete his purchase, (y) But in the year 1808, the instances in
which the Court of Chancery had exercised such a power, seems
to have been again almost forgotten, (z) The Chancellor expressed

(x) Ex parte Minor, 11 Ves. 562; Casamajor v. Strode, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 195;
Bligfa v. Darnley, 2 P. Will, 620; Carpenter v. Thornton, 5 Com. Law Rep. 225.—
(y) Cunningham v. Williams, 2 Anstr. 344; S. C. 2 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 268, 272.—
(z) Anonymous, 2 Ves. jun. 336.