614 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND.

trustee makes any promise or representation to the bidder, before-
the sale, that the estate shall be, or is clear of all incumbrances,
or that the title is better or different from that to be traced from
the proceedings, and any such claims should afterwards appear, or
be set up, the sale will be annulled. But this relief would be
granted to the purchaser on the ground of misrepresentation or
fraud, and not on that of a mere defect of title, as in cases
between party and party.

After a sale has been ratified, the Court, in England, will not
rescind the order, and open the biddings without strong induce-
ments. Sudg. Vend. & Pur. 47. So in this State, after a sale has
been made and reported, and before it has been ratified, it is open
to all objections. And, if objected to, unless it should, on exami-
nation, turn out to be, in all respects, fair and proper, it will not
be ratified. But, after it has been confirmed, the purchaser can
only obtain relief by bill or petition; and thus calling the litigating
parties to the suit again before the Court to answer, repel, and re-
move the objections which he may so make, if they can.

*It is usual, in England, at the time of bidding, or of
648 having the biddings opened to be let in as a higher bidder,
for the proffering purchaser to make a deposit of a considerable
amount of the purchase money, by way of earnest. And this de-
posit is sometimes said to be the only hold which the Court has
upon the purchaser, and it is in truth, the only hold which it can

against them by the trustees for the purchase money; and they now brought
this bill, having discovered, as they alleged, that the land was deficient in
quantity, and that the trustees could make no title, because there were other
incumbrances not made known at the time of sale.

KILTY, C., September, 1806.—The right and title of the parties to the origi-
nal suit, whatever it might be, was to be sold; and no person, whether part
buyer or part seller, was bound to examine into the title of the estate, which
was in custodia legis, and vested in the trustees, who were not competent to
make the objection of any latent or obvious defect. In this State it has been
repeatedly declared that, in sales under a decree of this Court, which are
made subject to the Chancellor's approbation and ratification, any circum-
stances shewing that such sales are injurious to the complainants, or that
better sales might reasonably and probably have been made, are sufficient to
set them aside. This principle to be just, should be reciprocal and mutual.
And the ratification that has been given, can make no difference as to the
present claim. Under all the circumstances, the Chancellor vacated the sale
for one of the lots, and made the injunction to stay the proceedings at law
. in part perpetual. And the lot, the sale of which was thus annulled, was
ordered to be again sold entire, and not by the acre. It was objected, that
inasmuch as a survey was made of the lands and a plot exhibited, the
smallest variation would destroy the contract. The true location, however,
is not so much the point in dispute as the substantial value of the land, and
if that is not altered the difference forms no ground of relief. Different
surveyors have made it different in quantity, and if the purchaser has an
allowance for the deficiency, it is all he can require.