286 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

3d. That a bidder 'who would have given nearly twice the
amount for which the property was struck off, was kept from
attending the sale by the information which he received from
&e defendant.

These circumstances, I am persuaded, must cause a doubt,
and a strong doubt, of the propriety of the sale, and when
viewed in connection with the unquestionable fact, that the
property sold much below its value, seem to me to furnish suf-
ficient grounds to vacate it.

This case, in some of its features, and, especially, in that
particular one upon which my judgment is formed, is striking-
ly like the case of Williamson vs. Dale, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep,, 290,
in which a sale made by a master in New York was set aside,
upon the ground of surprise; the surprise consisting in a mis-
apprehension on the part of the defendant, as to the day of sale,
founded upon conversations had by their agent with the plain-
tiff and his solicitor—there was, in that case, as stated by the
Chancellor, no imputation of any unfair intention in the plain-
tiff or the solicitor, or of any unfair conduct at the sale; but
still, upon the ground, that the defendants were innocently mis-
led, the sale was vacated; though the purchaser was conceded
to stand fair before the court, upon which he was allowed his
costs, which I shall order to be paid him in this case.

There was inadequacy of price shown in the case before
Chancellor Kent, but that, he said, would not be sufficient, un-
attended with other circumstances. He put it upon the ground
of surprise, though he remarked, the surprise was not of the
most stringent kind; and the case for relief, on that ground,
was pushed to the utmost verge of an admissible interference.

The case now under consideration is, I think, stronger than
that of Williamson and Dale; and, therefore, I do not think I am
treading on delicate or dangerous ground, in vacating this sale
and ordering the property to be put again in the market. Some
of the objections, founded on considerations of public policy,
are certainly obviated by the concurrence of the plaintiff, in the
application for the interposition of the court.

An order will be passed, setting aside the sale, directing the