48 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

ings, that the party who purchased for taxes, asserted and was
determined to maintain the title thus acquired.

The fourth and fifth objections are based upon an alleged in-
adequacy of price, and upon negotiations carried on by Mr.
Wayman for the sale of the property, which resulted, as stated,
in selling at a price much higher than the price obtained by the
trustee. That inadequacy of price will not induce the court to
vacate a sale, in other respects unexceptionable, unless such
inadequacy is so gross as to indicate a want of reasonable
judgment and discretion in the trustee, was said by the Court
of Appeals, in Glenn vs. Clapp, 11 G. & J., 9.

It is material, therefore, to inquire, whether the inadequacy
of price in this case, is so gross and palpable as to indicate a
want of indiscretion and judgment on the part of the trustee.
Looking to the bid made on the 8th September, 1846, when
the lands were offered at public sale, as any criterion of the
price which could probably be obtained for them; [and] the
sale reported, surely cannot be condemned upon the ground of
inadequacy, since the sale reported is for a much larger sum
than was offered at the public bidding.

But it is said, that although the price bid at the public offer
of this property, was less than the sum which Markell and
Thomas propose to pay; yet the trustee had information that
negotiations were pending, if not concluded, by Wayman, for
a much larger sum; and that under such circumstances the
trustee should have at least communicated with Mr. Wayman
before he made a sale. The Chancellor thinks, that the rea-
sons assigned by the trustee for proceeding as he did, are satis-
factory, and indeed, Mr. Wayman himself confesses, that he,
and not the trustee, was remiss in not giving information at the
proper time. But is there in truth, any evidence, that these
lands are worth more ? Or that more could be obtained for
them than Markell and Thomas have agreed to give. And
emphatically, it may be asked, is there any evidence to show
that a better price could have been had on the 15th of May,
1847, the date of the sale.
The letter of Duff Green, on the 19th of August, 1847, with