ANDREWS v. SCOTTON. 651

some doubt, but on being referred to a case which arose in the year
1791, he made the order, that the purchaser should pay his pur-
chase money within a fortnight, or stand committed; observing,
that the principle required it equally in the case of a purchaser, who
could not be permitted to baffle the court, and disobey an order,
more than any other person, (a)

From these authorities it appears to have been the settled law
of the English Court of Chancery long before, and ever since our
revolution, that on a purchaser's failing to comply, the court would,
on application, after the ratification of the sale, compel him to
complete his purchase by process of attachment for contempt.

But it has happened in this state as in England, that the evi-
dence of the existence of this power, so important and so neces-
sary to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, has been many
times almost forgotten, and the propriety of the power itself has
been as often doubted or opposed, (b) There is no instance in
this state of a deposite ever having been exacted of a bidder, be-
fore the ratification of the sale; and therefore, if a purchaser cannot
be coerced by process of attachment, this court has no hold of
him; nor can it ever take hold of him, in any manner, so as to
prevent him from making a mere sport of its decrees.

Some five and twenty years ago, it happened, that a purchaser
under a decree of this court, became a bankrupt; and the solicitor,
under an impression that relief could only be had by a regular suit,
brought a bill, in which it is stated, that the land had been sold on
a credit, and bonds taken of the purchaser, with a surety, to secure
the purchase money; that the bonds were, by order of this court,

assigned by the trustee to the complainant; that the purchaser had
been regularly declared a bankrupt; and that the surety was insol-

vent. The purchaser and his assignees only, were made defen-
dants. The bill prayed, that the sale might be annulled, that the
bonds might be cancelled, and for general relief. The assignee
answered and admitted the fact, and the bill was taken pro confesso
against the purchaser. Upon which, the Chancellor, in his decree
of the 7th of July, 1808, concisely observes, that 'although the
complainant might obtain relief in another way, and the neglect or
refusal to pay money due for property sold, is not alone, a sufficient

(a) Lansdown v. Elderton, 14 Ves. 512; Ex parte Cranmer, 2 Collinson on
Idiots, 705.—(b) It is true, that the law sometimes -sleeps, and judgment wakens
it; for, dormit aliquando lex moritur nunquam.—Mary Portengton's case, 10 Co. 42.