356 DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.

DORSEY v. CAMPBELL.

A purchased of B a tract of land, for which A stipulated to pay in bonds and notes
endorsed by him, and for the eventual solvency of which he should be responsible
Held, that A must deliver to B such choses in action within a reasonable time,
but could not do so after he had filed his bill against B, for a specific performance:
And that B must use due diligence in collecting the choses in action so put into
his hands; and should be allowed all proper expenses, to be deducted from the
sums collected.

On a bill for specific performance, where the agreement is admitted or proved as set
forth in the answer, no cross bill is necessary, but a decree may be passed against
each party according to the extent of his liability—against the one directing him
to convey the estate; and against the other ordering him to pay the purchase
money.

The mode in which a purchaser of land under a, fieri facias from this court may obtain
possession, as directed by the act of 1825, ch. 103.

This bill was filed on the 16th of June, 1823, by Clement Dorsey
against James Campbell and John Ritchie, to enforce the specific
performance of an agreement. The bill states, that Henry Anderson
had conveyed t6 the defendants two tracts of land in Charles
county, which lands they had sold and contracted to convey, clear
of all incumbrances, to this plaintiff; that as a means of making
payment for the lands, it was agreed, that the plaintiff should assign
to the defendants certain debts and choses in action; that he made
the assignments accordingly, upon which the defendants had made
collections and recovered judgments to the whole amount of the
purchase money; and yet, that they had refused to execute and
deliver a deed conveying the legal title of those lands to the
plaintiff. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed, that the defendants
might be ordered to convey the lands according to the terms of
the agreement, and for general relief.

The defendants Campbell & Ritchie, on the 6th of December,
1823, put in their answer, in which they admit the contract as
stated in the bill; but deny, that they had collected, or were then
able to collect, the whole amount of the purchase money from the
choses in action which had been assigned to them; that they had
offered to convey, and were then, and always had been ready to
execute a conveyance of the legal title, on receiving the whole
amount of the purchase money; and that some of the choses in
action, which had been assigned to them, and from which they had
been utterly unable to collect any thing, they then held, and were
ready to re-assign to the plaintiff