ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—-2 BLAND. 623

the bonds or notes given by them for the payment of the purchase
money.

Ordered, that no good cause having been shewn against the
order of the 17th of March last, the same is hereby confirmed and
made absolute. Also ordered, that" an attachment issue against
the said Samuel Anderson, to enforce obedience to the said order,
returnable to the next term.

From this order Anderson having appealed, a transcript of the
record was sent up accordingly, and the case was argned before
the Court of Appeals by the solicitors of the parties, (m)

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, June Term, 1828.—It appears from
the proceedings in this case, that on the .sale made by the appellee
to the appellant, being reported to the Chancellor, objections to its
ratification were filed by the appellant, and answered by the ap-
pellee, on full consideration of which the sale was ratified, and that
ratification affirmed by this Court; it is, therefore, not competent
for the appellant now to contest the propriety or validity of that
sale, it having received the sanction of the highest judicial author-
ity of this State. But it has been contended, that as the appel-
lant never was * reported to the Court as the purchaser of
the property sold by the appellee, he cannot be compelled 658
to complete the purchase by paying the purchase money. It does
not appear, it is true, that the trustee in this case has proceeded,
according to the usual practice of the Court in making a formal
report of his sale; but it appears by the proceedings, that on the
9th of October, 1822, the appellant filed his petition to the Chan-
cellor, in which he stated that he had contracted with the appellee
for the purchase of the land in question, supposed to contain one
hundred and forty acres, at, and for the sum of $11 per acre, and
by the report of the trustee (the appellee,) was returned the pur-
chaser, and prayed that the sale made and reported might not be
confirmed. On the coming in of the answer of the appellee, and
the return of depositions, which were taken in pursuance of the
Chancellor's order, and upon the return of the locations made by
the sheriff of the county, under the same authority, the Chancellor
passed an order ratifying and confirming the sale, which order, on
appeal, received the sanction of this Court.

It is, therefore, now too late for the appellant to object that he
was not reported in the more formal and usual way, to the Court
of Chancery, as the purchaser of the property. The trustee, more-
over, in answering the petition of the appellant, against the rati-
fication of the sale, refers to, and makes a part of his answer, the

(m) This opinion of the Court of Appeals is introduced here, out of
chronological order, that it may be placed in juxtaposition to the decision of
the Chancellor, to which it relates.