This case differs from the others3 only in this respect: that the purchaser, instead of giving a bond and mortgage to secure the purchase-money, actually paid the same to Mr. Bayard on receiving the deed, and after the judgment obtained against Bayard, which brings the case precisely within that of Hampson v. Edelen, 2 Har. & J. 64, and which rests on the same principles that governed the decision in the case of Finch v. Earl of Winchelsea, 1 P. Wms. 278.

Tne injunction in this case must be made perpetual, without requiring the complainant to make any further payment for the land purchased by and conveyed to him.