BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND. 561

did sell the whole of said property in the manner herein before
stated."

Upon which, on the 27th of February, 1813, the usual order
nisi was passed; and, no cause having- been shewn, the sales, as
thus made and reported, were, ou the 15th of July, 1813, finally
ratified and confirmed. Some time after the trustee had thus made
his report of the sales, Freeborn Brown gave his bond with Wil-
liam Brown as his surety for the payment of the purchase money:
and Freeborn Brown was soon after put into the actual possession
of lot No. 11, as the purchaser thereof, by the trustee.

After which William Cole, by his petition, stated, that he had
purchased as reported by the trustee; but that the tract of land
called Convenience, of which the lots he purchased were parts, was
sold by the acre, and that it was distinctly understood, at the time
of the sale, that a deduction should be made for any deficiency;
* and that he being the last purchaser, the deficiency all fell
on him, as he was to take the residue. On which petition 590
the trustee Wallace certified as follows, that on the day of sale he
made it known, "that, if upon an accurate survey it should be
found, that the tract called Convenience did not contain fifty-six
acres, that the deficiency should be deducted from the last lot of
said tract sold, containing six acres, and the purchaser credited
with the price. Mr. William Cole was the purchaser, and the price
per acre will appear by reference had to my report. The said tract
has been since surveyed by Mr. Osborn, who certifies, that it con-
tains only fifty-four acres, which I believe to be correct."

KILTY, C., 22nd February, 1814.—Ordered, that the trustee
credit the principal of the petitioner's bond with the price of two
acres of lot No. G, viz. $40.

The auditor in a report bearing- date on the 17th of June, 1814,
said, that he liad, at the request of the said Abraham Jarrett,
stated an account between the estate of the said William Mite-hell,
deceased, and the heirs at law of James Mitchell, deceased, in
which the intestate William's estate was charged with the valua-
tion of the intestate James' estate. William's estate, was then
credited by one-sixth of that sum as the portion of Martin, the
eldest heir of the intestate James, and also by one-twelfth of that
sum, being the one-half of the portion of Bennet, another heir of
the intestate James, which it was stated, in the defendant Parker
Mitchell's answer, were purchased by the intestate William in his
life-time; but whether those portions had been paid for, did not
appear; there being no evidence upon the subject. The auditor
further said, that he had then apportioned the balance, $7,372,50,
due from the estate of the intestate William, to Harriet Mitchell,
one-sixth; to James and Aquila Mitchell, the: complainants, one
36 2 B.