232 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

"The answer of Hodges, the mortgagee, to this petition,
states, among other reasons in opposition to its prayer, that
the property purchased by the petitioner, sold very low, and
that, he believes, it could now be sold for more than will satisfy
the purchase money, and the amoutft of the judgment of Speed
and Pennington, and, that if thi? court is disposed to interfere
in any way, it should be by setting aside the sale, and putting
the property again in the market. But this form of relief, it is
understood, the purchasers are opposed to."

"The property was sold to satisfy a mortgage, dated on the
17th May, 1843, under a decree passed upon a bill filed by the
mortgagee against the mortgagors, for a foreclosure and sale ;

and the question is, whether a purchaser at such a sale has a
right to insist that all prior incumbrances should be removed,
so that he shall receive a clear title, and further, that the right
so to insist, continues after the sale has been finally ratified,
and the proceeds actually appropriated to the payment of the
mortgage debt, by an order of the court."

After an examination of the authorities, cited in argument:

Glenn vs. Clapp, 11 Gill & Johns., 10; Brooke vs. Brooke
and others, 12 Gill & Johns; 306; Bell vs. Brown's adm'r, 3
Harris & Johns., 484; Ellicott vs. Ellicott et al., 6 Gill &
Johns., 35, to show that they did not prevent the strict appli-
cation of the rule, caveat emptor, in the present case, "the sale
having been conducted by the trustee in the ordinary way,
without any stipulation in regard to the title, other than that
which resulted from the decree under which he acted," the
Chancellor proceeds :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

If the doctrine contended for by the solicitor for the petition-
ers be sound, and the court is bound to disencumber the title
of all liens, it might sometimes find itself in an embarrassing
situation, and unable to do what the purchaser has a right to re-
quire. In the case of Ellicott vs. Ellicott, already referred to,
the court said, the mortgagees who were not made parties to
the bill, "were not bound to come in and seek payment under