522
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
therefor in money. But the Court is also of opinionthat, under the particular circumstances of this case, itwould be more equitable to decree to them compensa-tion in money, if it can be procured within a reasonabletime, rather than the land itself; and that the measureof that compensation should be the amount of principalmoney contracted to be paid by the appellees to the saidJohn Heth for the said seventeen undivided twenty-fourths of the mansion house property, with legal in-terest thereon from the death of the said John Heth,till paid; which money, when paid, should be com-mitted to a trustee to be appointed by the Chancellor,for the benefit of the appellants, according to the usesand trusts expressed and declared in the deed of the14th of May 1822. But if the said money shall notbe paid by the appellees, by the time appointed by theChancellor for that purpose, then that a decree shall beentered up in favour of the appellants against the appel-lees for the land aforesaid, to be committed to a trusteefor their benefit, according to the uses and trusts de-clared in the said deed last above mentioned.
The decree is therefore reversed with costs, and thecause is remanded to the Court of Chancery , to be pro-ceeded in to a final decree, according to the principlesabove declared.
Allen and Baldwin, J’s dissented.