case Savile versusSAVILE Lord chancellor Macclesfield Eq can ab pl purchaser  before a master submit to forfeit his deposit not bind to proceed in the  purchase in this cause there be a decree inter all for the sale of  Halifaxhouse in saint James square to the best purchaser before the master and  Thomas Frederick esquire be report the best bidder at pound have make pound  deposit on the day of petition after Hilary term it be pray that Mr Frederick  may complete his purchase and pay the remainder of the purchase money upon  which Mr Frederick by his counsel declare that he elect to lose his deposit  but the Lord Nottingham grandfather and guardian to the young lady the  plaintiff who be the daughter and coheir of William late Lord marquis of  Halifax by lady mary finch insist that Mr Frederick be the best bidder ought  to pay the residue of the purchasemoney and be present himself urge that this  contract since it be m de with the court in trust for the plaintiff can not as  he think be discharge upon any other term than payment of the residue of the  purchase money that have it be the case of a private contract between party  and party and so much money pay as earnest there can be no reason to imagine  that because the intend purchaser pay so much by way of earnest therefore he  shall be at liberty to get off from the bargain by lose his earnest and sure  the contract make with the peer William court be at least as strong as if make  with the party that if there have be no deposit it will hardly have be a  question but that the party shall have be compel to pay the whole  purchasemoney and can it be imagine that the contract be the weak because  there be a deposit this will be invert the very sense and meaning of the party  and to construe that a deposit shall weaken instead of strengthen the contract  that forfeit the deposit be sure the most unequal way that can be for it make  no alteration whatever the deposit be whether great or small and therefore in  the case of Morrett v Bennett where the deposit be ten thousand pound the  whole deposit be forfeit and if in that case it have be but one thousand pound  yet only so much as have be deposit can be forfeit from whence it seem that as  the deposit may bear a very great disproportion to the value of the estate it  can consequent be no proper measure of satisfaction to the seller for the  buyer recede from his contract that as the seller be bind to sell so ought the  tie to mutual upon the buyer also Lord chancellor take notice that more have  be urge by the Lord Nottingham than he have ever hear on this subject but that  he have take good advice and well consider before he make the like order in  the other case that accord to his apprehension a court of equity ought to take  notice under what a general delusion the nation be at the time when this  contract be make by Mr Frederick when there be think to be more money in the  nation than there real be which induce people to put imaginary value on peer  William estate that as upon a contract betwixt party and party the contractor  will not be decree to pay a unreasonable price see day v Newman Cox for a  estate so neither ought the court to be partial to itself and do more upon a  contract make with itself or carry that far than it will a contract betwixt  party and party on the other hand the court right be say to have rather a  great power over a contract make with itself than with any other peer William  er p that the deposit be suppose to be a proper pledge for secure the seller  in case the intend purchaser shall afterward go off and have it not be  sufficient the other side may have move to have such deposit increase but be  think a sufficient pledge it be punishment enough if the party that make it be  to lose it and satisfaction enough to the seller if he be to have the benefit  of keep the deposit that in this case the deposit be near a tithe of the  purchasemoney so that if the seller can get as much within pound of any other  purchaser he will be no loser and if he can not get so much within pound then  it will appear to be dear sell and consequent a bargain not fit to be execute  by this court that the court have make several order in case of this nature  attend with strong circumstance as where the estate be great encumber and the  creditor will lose their debt if the bargain do not proceed but a hardship  ought not to be decree against one in order to prevent its fall upon another  and if those order shall be discharge whereby other get off from contract by  lose their deposit it will make great confusion and their money must be bring  again into court the best way certain be for the court to be uniform in its  resolution peer William wherefore it be order that Mr Frederick shall lose his  deposit of pound and be discharge of his contract determine in this court some  little time before as be also the case of dr Tennison v Lord Bulkley in both  which case the best bidder upon lose their deposit be discharge of their  contract but this be not the general law of the court and the decision be  probable find on the general delusion of the time as take notice of by Lord  Macclesfield Crutchley v Jerningham mere so where a bind be give for  performance of a contract the obligor can vacate his contract on payment of  the penalty of his bind Prebble v Boghurst swan