ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND. 605

In an English case which arose on a sale under the authority of
the Court of Chancery, decided, in the year 1721, in which the
question was, whether the purchaser should be compelled to com-
plete his purchase or not, the matter is spoken of as one perfectly
settled. "Upon a contract betwixt party and party," says the
Chancellor, "the contractor would not be decreed to pay an un-
reasonable price tor an estate; so neither ought the Court to be
partial to itself, and to do more upon a contract made with itself,
or carry that farther, than it would a contract betwixt party and
party. On the other hand, the Court might be said to have rather
a greater power over a contract made with it-self, than with any
other." Savile v. Savile, 1 P. Will, 745. And in other cases of
recent date, where the, subject has been brought into view, the .
Court has, in like manner, been spoken of and considered as the
vendor. Ex parte Minor, 11 Ves. 560: Lord v. Lord, 2 Cond.
Cha. Sep. 253; Skewen v. Vanderhorst, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 461.

In a controversy relative to a trustee's sale under a decree, of
this Court, which was frequently brought before Chancellor HAN-
SON, and appears to have been much considered by him, he says,
"with respect to sales under the authority of this Court, the-Chan-
cellor thinks himself bound to act as if the property were his own,
or held by him in trust. That is to say, he thinks, that, reasons
which would induce him as proprietor or trustee to set aside a sale
made by his agent, should determine him as Chancellor to refuse
his approbation to a sale made by a trustee." (h) Hence it is evi-

(h) LAWSON v. THE STATE.— This bill, filed on the 21st of February, 1800,
states that the late John Seraple, on the 1st of April, 1T69, to secure the pay-
ment of a large debt, as specified in the exhibit, mortgaged to the plaintiff
James Lawson, of Scotland, the tract of land called Semple's Manor, con-
taining more than seventeen thousand acres; and that the defendant's estate
therein was confiscated and vested in the State; but that the State never
took possession, &c. Prayer for a sale, to pay debts, &c. On the answer of
Luther Martin, the Attorney-General, a sale was decreed accordingly.

HANSON, C., 1st December, 1803.—In this case a sale hath taken place under
a decree, passed with consent o.f the parties, the Chancellor having exer-
cised no judgment, except that he was previously satisfied there was
nothing fraudulent or improper in the decree framed and agreed to as
aforesaid. On the report of the trustees, that they had made a sale, and
assigned reasons for the terms of the sale different from what might have
been expected from the expressions in the decree, and in their advertise-
ment. The Chancellor, as is usual in such cases, passed an order, which has
been duly published according to its tenor, declaring that he would ratify
the sale, unless objections should be made on or before the third Tuesday of-
November, 1803: provided the order be published, &c. &c.

After that the Chancellor received what, on first sight, he supposed a pri-
vate sealed letter, but uuder the cover, containing no letter, he found en-
closed a petition with thirty-two signatures, several of which he could not
read, stating, in effect, as an objection-to the sale, that it was not made as