44 DEAVER v. REYNOLDS.—1 BLAND.

DEAVER v. REYNOLDS.
PURCHASER AT A CHANCEEY SALE DISCHARGED.

Where a person, who had allowed himself to be reported by the trustee as
the highest bidder, without any design to baffle the proceedings of the
Court, stated, that he was unable to comply with the terras of the sale,
he was discharged on payment of costs only, without having the prop-
erty resold at his risk, (a)

This bill was filed on the 29th July, 1824, by James Deaver and
Eliza his wife, against Lewis Reynolds, Alien Reynolds, and
others, the heirs of the late Tobias Reynolds, to obtain a partition
among them of the real estate of which he had died seized. The
defendants answered; and on the 30th of March, 1825, a decree
was passed, directing the estate to be sold for the purpose of
effecting a division of its value, as it was incapable of a specific
partition. The trustee reported, that he had made a sale as
directed; and that Lewis Reynolds was the purchaser. Upon
which an order was passed, that the sale should be ratified unless
cause were shewn to the contrary on or before the 7th of July,
1825.

After which the trustee reported, that the purchaser had ne-
glected to give bond and comply with the terms of sale; upon
which he submitted the matter to the consideration of the Chan-
cellor. And at the same time Lewis Reynolds, the purchaser, by
a note in writing, stated, that it was entirely out of his power to
comply with the terms of the sale; and therefore prayed, that it
might be set aside.

BLAND, C., 28th July, 1825.—It is not alleged, nor is it shewn,

that there has been any design to baffle the proceedings of the

Court, or to obtain any undue advantage by this bidder. He

seems to have had a fair intention to purchase, but has either been

* disappointed in his means, or has not had the ability to

51 make the purchase, which he had calculated upon. Hodder
v. Ruffin, 1 Ves. & B. 544. I shall not, therefore, order the estate
to be resold at his risk, or charge him with interest on the amount
of the purchase money as a penalty for the disappointment he has
occasioned. Yet, as he has, by this abortive attempt to purchase,
put the case to much expense, it is but just, that he alone should
be charged with it.

(a) As to remedies against a purchaser at a sale under a decree who fails
to comply with the terms of sale, see Anderson v. Foulke, 2 H. & G. 346,
note; Richardson v. Jones, 3 G. & J. 164. note; Rev. Code, Art. 66, sec. 6.