BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND. 563

mentioned case of Mitchell against Mitchell in the High Court of
Chancery, in pursuance of the decree in that case, and of the writ-
ten authority of the 29th of April, 1812; that the plaintiff Free-
born, under a belief that the land so purchased by him, did contain
the number of acres as stated, gave his bond, with the plaintiff
* William, as his surety for the purchase money; upon which
bond, after it became due, the defendant Wallace, brought 592
suit and obtained judgment, from which these plaintiff's appealed,
and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, at June
Term, 18-17. That the plaintiff Freeborn, had paid to this defend-
ant, the trustee, on the 18th of January, 1818. $900, in part satis-
faction of the judgment. The bill then further stated, that this
plaintiff Freeborn. was not put into possession of the land so pur-
chased by him until the month of November next, after the day of
sale; that the tract had been found to contain only one hundred and
twenty-six acres, three-quarters ami twenty-four perches; and there-
fore, he claims an allowance for deficiency; that the heirs of Wil-
liam Mitchell, deceased, had by a deed dated on the 14th of Sep-
tember, 181o, sold and conveyed a part of this very land to Car-
vill Cooley, and Charles Cooley, who had taken possession accord-
ingly; that a suit in Chancery had been instituted by Samuel Cover,
who claimed by a title paramount, against the heirs of William
Mitchell, deceased, for the recovery of this hind; and that an ac-
tion of ejectment was about to be brought by one Philip Cover,
for the recovery of the same land, &c. Whereupon the bill prayed
for an injunction to stay execution upon the said judgment. And
an injunction was granted accordingly, as prayed.

To this bill, the defendant Wallace, answered, and admitted the
proceedings in the High Court of Chancery as stated; and said,
that he had only sold to the plaintiff Freeborn, the interest which
the heirs of James Mitchell and William Mitchell, had in the land;
and that he did not pretend to warrant the title: that the plaintiff
Freeborn, was put into possession soon after he gave bond for the
purchase money; that at the- time of sale, a plot of the land was
exhibited, and the sale was made near the land, which was shewn
to the plaintiff Freeborn. so that he could not have been mistaken
with regard to it; that this trustee did not sell to the plaintiff
Freeborn, any land claimed by the Cooleys; and that the plaintiff
Freeborn, was told of, and had full knowledge of the claim of the
Covers, on the day of the sale.

These plaintiffs, by a supplemental bill, filed on the 17th of
August, 1824, stated, that Robert. Cover had obtained judgment
against them, and turned them out of possession of the land pur-
chased by the plaintiff' Freeborn. In answer to which, the defen-
dant Wallace, alleged, that the said judgment had been obtained
entirely by the negligence and default of the plaintiffs,

* After which, Kent Mitchell, who, although not so ex-
pressly stated, appears to have been one of the heirs of 593