440 MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

The trustee immediately after represented by his petition, that
Elizabeth Murdock had not paid the purchase money as stipu-
lated, &c.

BLAND, C., 22ml January, 1829.—Ordered, that the said Eliza-
beth Murdock forthwith bring into Court the purchase money
now due for the property in the proceedings mentioned, together
with legal interest thereon, or shew good cause to the contrary, on
the 5th day of February next; provided, that a copy of this order,
together with a copy of the foregoing petition be served on her on
or before the 26th day of the present month.

The plaintiff, William Brewer, by his petition, stating that
Elizabeth Murdlock had failed to pay the purchase money as or-
dered, prayed that he might be considered as the purchaser of the
forty-four acres of land according to the terms of the sale as re-
ported by the trustee; and that his claim might be set off against
the net amount of the purchase money.

BLAND, C., 9th February, 1828.—It appears that Elizabeth
Murdoek has been served with copies, as required, and yet has
shewn no cause. It is true that a trustee, or any one acting as
such is not allowed, without divesting himself of that character,
to purchase at a sale made by himself. But the policy of the
*law which forbids that; because of the strong temptation
468 to fraud, where there is such a conflict of duty and interest;
and because one man should not be permitted to take advantage
of the necessities of another, is not infringed by allowing a
plaintiff, a creditor, or a mortgagee to purchase at a sheriff's sale,
or at a sale made by a trustee of this Court; as, in such case, the
party is proceeding adversely against his debtor, uot by any pri-
vate dealing, but by the public process of the law, in which he
himself is not the seller, but an impartial executive officer or
agent of the Court. Stratford v. Twynan, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 193.
With regard to the discount asked for, it is certain, that the trus-
tee, appointed by the decree to make the sale, can dispose of the
purchase money in no way, without the express authority of the
Court. Bennett v. Hamill, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 581. But, as the mort-
gage debtj the recovery of which is the sole object of this suit, has
been established by the decree for a sale, there can be no impro-
priety, after first deducting the commissions, expenses and costs,
in ordering the proceeds to be, at once, applied in satisfaction of
that debt by discount, with the mortgagee as purchaser, or in any
other way. And Elizabeth Murdock having failed to comply with
the terms of the contract of sale, William Brewer, the plaintiff
and mortgagee, must be received as the purchaser, and be allowed
the discount as prayed accordingly.