In  an  action  to  recover  the  deposit,  it  was  held  that  the
vendor  was  entitled  to  retain  it  and  that  his  right  to  do  so
was  not  affected  by  a  stipulation  in  the  contract  providing
that  if  the  purchaser  should  fail  to  comply,  then  the  vendor
might  re-sell,  and  any  deficiency  at  the  second  sale  should  be
recovered  as  liquidated  damages.*

Scofield  V.  Tompkins,  9o  111.  190,  defendant  agreed  to  pay  a  certain
sum  for  land  by  a  time  limited  under  a  contract  giving  to  the  plain-
tiff the  right  in  case  of  default  to  retain  any  money  paid  on  account,
also  to  declare  the  contract  void  and  to  sue  for  the  whole  of  the
price  as  liquidated  damages,  retaining  meanwhile  title  and  posses-
sion.   In  was  held  that  the  sum  named  could  not  be  recovered.
6  Sprague  v.  Booth,  L.  E.  [1909],  App.  C.  576;  In  Re  Dageiiham
Dock  Co.,  L.  R.  8,  Ch.  App.  1022;  Cornwall  v.  Henson,  L.  R.[1900],
2  Ch.  298.
T  Wallis  V.  Smith.  L.  R.  21,  Ch.  D.  243,  cited  in  Willson  v.  Balti-
more City,  S?.  JId.  214.
s  Howe  V.  Smith,  L.  R.  27,  Ch.  D.  89.
