ANDREWS v. SCOTTON—2 BLAND. 601

estate of Scotton, it is necessary to see the other tranfers; and if
Hogan's title is the eldest, yet a title to it may have been acquired
by possession; for as it is laid down as a part of the land sold, it
is to be presumed Scotton was in possession at the time of his
death.

Where a tract of land is sold, and it turns out to be materially
variant from the representation, the contract may be set aside.
Where a tract is sold as containing a given quantity of acres,
when it is discovered that less is included than was conceived at
the time of the sale, a deduction will be made, unless the defi-
ciency shall be such as would have prevented the contract, if
known at the time of the purchase; that is, the deficiency appear-
ing to be in that part which was the chief inducement to the pur-
chase. But in this case, iu every respect, the petitioner has failed
to support his allegations. He has not proved that the trustee'
represented to him that he sold a piece of woodland as part of Du-
vall's Delight, which is included in the lines of neighboring tracts.
He has laid down no interfering tract whatever; nor if the right of
the trustee to sell three roods did not exist, and it could not exist
unless it was * owned by Scotton at the time of his death,
has he proved that those roods of land were the inducement 634
to the purchase. The sale made by the trustee is therefore ratified
and confirmed, and the petition dismissed with costs.

From this order Anderson appealed; and no objection being
made, the Court of Appeals, on the 16th of July. 18.55, affirmed the
Chancellor's order.

After which, the trustee Foulke, by his petition, on affirmation
filed on the 12th of January, 1826, stated, that he had served a
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals on Aiiderson, and had
demanded of him payment, and that he should complete his pur-
chase, which he had refused to do. Whereupon the trustee prayed
for an attachment.

Upon which, on the next day, an attachment was ordered as
prayed, returnable to the first day of March Term then next. The
writ was issued accordingly, and Anderson having been brought
before the Court under it, the trustee prayed that he might be
committed.

But Anderson had previously, on the 16th of March, 1826, put in
his answer on oath, in which he alleged that it did not appear, by
the trustee's report, that he, Anderson, was the purchaser of the
land; that in consequence of the irregularity of the proceedings, a
good title could not be conveyed to him by the trustee; that he,
Anderson, had not been put into possession of the land, and he
believed that the trustee could not give him the possession, the
land being in the occupation of a certain Joseph Marriott; that a
copy of the decretal order of the Court of Appeals had not been