
    M’DERMED vs. M’CASTLAND.
      
    
    July 25th.
    A contra» by fonWndseWmI fe if to fettle on vacant land and thenUrconveye k to Another, i5 againft the polio granting16lamis tofettiers; and carrieVinto fpe-eific execution,
    M’CASTLAND exhibited his bill in chancery in the Danville district court against Troxwell and M’Der-med, in which he stated the following facts :
    On the 7th day of December, 1797, Troxwell by his penal bond bound himself, in substance, to make such an improvement as the act of assembly required, on such tract Df land as M’Castland should show. Troxwell was to do every act necessary to obtain a certificate and patent, and then convey the land to M’Castland. M’-Castland paid a valuable consideration to Troxwell for said agreement} and further agreed to advance the money necessary for defraying all the expenses in procuring a title. M’Castland made choice of a spot of land, and showed it to Troxwell, who duly improved it, and obtained a certificate therefor; but in violation of his agreement, assigned the certificate to M’Dermed, and absconded. M’Dermedhad notice ofM’Castland’s contract with Troxwell; but was proceeding, by virtue of the certificate so assigned, to procure for himself a title to said land. M’Castland paid, or tendered, all the money he was bound to pay under his contract with Trox-well. The bill prayed for a specific execution of the contract.
    Aftso^796-7, j 7ch^46 [f 84,1 Brad. 84.
    3 Cranc^
    M’Dermed by his,answer put the complainant upon, the proof of the allegations in his bill.
    Troxwell did not answer, and the bill was taken for confessed against him.
    The inferior court were of opinion that the evidence supported the bill, and decreed in fayor of the complainant.
    From this decree M’Dermed took an appeal.
    
      
       ta'!: Cullum vs. M'Caftland, decided the fame day, prefented fimilar ⅛⅜ and the fame decree was pronounced in the two caufes,
    
   The Opinion of this Court was as follows : — .The contract entered into between M’Castland and Trox-well being contrary to the policy (not to say the letter) of the law, ought not to be carried into specific execution by a court of equity. The inferior court erred in sustaining the complainant’s claim.

Decree reversed.

On a subsequent day in term the following amend-. ment was made: “ Ordered that the decree made in this . case, at this term, is to stand amended so far as this, that the dismission of the bill is only to extend to M’Dermed,. and that M’Castland may proceed upon his bill against Troxwell to recover back from him the amount paid, with interest and costs.”  