BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND. 567

But that these several parcels of land were sold by the tract, and
were distinctly understood to be sold in that manner by all the
bidders present at the sale, is clearly shewn by the explanations in
relation to lot No. 6, which was sold by the acre as a residuum of
the tract called Convenience; but all the other lots, from No. 1 to
No. 11, were sold by the tract; all of them lying within certain
specified metes and bounds made known to the bidders at the
time of the sale. After thus describing one of those lots, the num-
ber of acres is specified with the usual reservation, " more or less',"
and lot No. 11. after being so described, is said to have been "laid
out for one hundred and forty-three acres." And in each case the
purchase money is summed up, and the purchaser is reported as
having agreed to give a designated sum total. What is meant in
general by the phrase, " more or less," or " laid out for so much,"
in conveyances of land in reference to quantity seems to remain as
yet unsettled. The Proprietary's instructions fixed it as a rule for
the land office, as to grants from the State, that they should be
allowed to cover no more than ten per cent.; but there has been
no rule established as to other grants or conveyances. Towns-
hend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 340; Winch v. Winchester, 1 Ves. & Bea.
375; Portman v. Mill, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 238; Hoffman v. John-
son, 1 Bland, 100; Land Hoi. Ass. 253; Andrews v. Scotton, post.

There is, however, no direct and satisfactory proof of any defi-
ciency in lot No. 11, as described and sold. It is not shewn
*that the boundaries by which the trustee sold that lot, do 597
not embrace the whole number of acres which they were said to
contain.

I am therefore of opinion, that this purchaser has failed to sus-
tain this claim for an allowance for deficiency; in the first place,
because the land was sold to him by the tract, and not by the
acre; and in the next place, because in point of fact, he has shewn
no deficiency within the designated boundaries.

This purchaser, Freeborn Brown, however, advances still further,
he prays to have the whole sale to him rescinded; and to have so
much of the purchase money as he has paid, returned to him. And
this he asks upon two grounds, first, that although the decree of
the 10th of March, 1812, restrained the sale to so much only, as
should be sufficient to satisfy the claims therein mentioned; yet
the trustee made sale of the whole of the interest of the heirs of
the late William Mitchell, by virtue of a pretended power, dated
on the 29th of April, 1812, from those heirs, to sell the whole,
when in truth, several of them were minors, and incompetent to
give any such power to sell; and the sale was ratified by the Chan-
cellor under a mistaken impression, that those heirs were of full
age, and able to convey; so that this lot No. 11. was disposed of,
which otherwise would not have been sold.