50 DEAVER v. REYNOLDS.

petition by them made be and the same is hereby ratified and
confirmed.

And it is further decreed, with the assent aforesaid, that Louisa
Armistead shall hold in severalty, and not jointly with the said heirs
of the said Christopher Hughes, deceased, all those lots of ground
which are contained in the grand division letter A, as described by
the commissioners in their said return, and which is composed of
the following lots, to wit: &c. &c. &c.

The costs of the suit to be borne by the heirs in equal parts.

DEAVER v. REYNOLDS.

Where a person, who had allowed himself to be reported by the trustee as the highest
bidder, without any design to baffle the proceedings of the Court, stated, that he
was unable to comply with the terms of the sale, he was discharged on payment of
costs only, without having the property resold at his risk.

This bill was filed on the 29th July, 1824, by James Deaver and
Eliza his wife, against Lewis Reynolds, Mien Reynolds, and others,
the heirs of the late Tobias Reynolds, to obtain a partition among
them of the real estate of which he had died seized. The defend-
ants answered; and on the 30th of March 1825, a decree was
passed, directing the estate to be sold for the purpose of effecting a
division of its value, as it was incapable of a specific partition.
The trustee reported, that he had made a sale as directed; and that
Lewis Reynolds was the purchaser. Upon which an order was
passed, that the sale should be ratified unless cause were shewn to
the contrary on or before the 7th of July 1825.

After which the trustee reported, that the purchaser had neglect-
ed to give bond and comply with the terms of sale; upon which
he submitted the matter to the consideration of the Chancellor.
And at the same time Lewis Reynolds, the purchaser, by a note in
writing, stated, that it was entirely out of his power to comply
with the terms of the sale; and therefore prayed, that it might be
set aside.

28th July, 1826.—BLAND, Chancellor.—It is not alleged, nor is
it shewn, that there has been any design to baffle the proceedings
of the court, or to obtain any undue advantage by this bidder. He
seems to have had a fair intention to purchase, but has either been