586 BROWN v. WALLACE.

rule caveat emptor, applies to all judicial sales; the operation of this rule —Courts
of equity, having concurrent jurisdiction, should not be brought into collision;
how such collisions may be avoided.

IN order that the opinion of the court upon the two cases which,
under the name of Brown against Wallace, were together brought
before it, discussed, and submitted for judgment, may be fully and
correctly understood, it will be necessary to make a report of the
previous case of Mitchell against Mitchell, instituted in this court,
out of which those cases arose, and upon which they were founded.

On the 23d of May, 1811, a bill was filed here by James Mit-
chell and Aquila Mitchell, infants, by Abraham Jarrett, their guar-
dian, against Parker Mitchell, Kent Mitchell, William Mitchell,
Sarah Mitchell, John Hughes, and Charlotte his wife, Thomas
Herbert, and Elizabeth his wife, Samuel Hopkins, and Mary his
wife, Joseph Hopkins, and Clemency his wife, Thomas Chesney,
and Hannah his wife, all of full age, and Edward Mitchell and
Ann Mitchell, infants. The bill states that James Mitchell, the
father of the plaintiffs, died some five years previous intestate and
seized in fee simple of several parcels of land, which descended
to his children and heirs, Martin Mitchell, Kent Mitchell, Bennet
Mitchell, and Harriet Mitchell, with these plaintiffs, James Mitchell
and Aquila Mitchell; that upon the petition of James and Aquila,
to Harford county court, under the act to direct descents for a par-
tition of the land so descended, a commission was accordingly
issued and returned to that court, stating that, by reason of a
valuable fishery, it could not be divided without loss, and that the
lands had been valued altogether at $9,830. Upon which, on the
15th of March, 1810, William, Mitchell, being the purchaser of
Martin Mitchell, the eldest heir's share, came into that court, and
elected to take the lands at the valuation. Since which election,
William Mitchell had died intestate, leaving these defendants his
heirs, and without having paid to these plaintiffs any part of the
value due to them; that administration on the personal estate of
William Mitchell, deceased, had been granted to the defendant,
and that the personal estate of the intestate William was altogether
insufficient to pay his debts. Whereupon the bill prayed that the
said lands, which were at law and in equity charged with the
plaintiff's demand, might be sold to pay the amount due to the
plaintiffs, (a)

(a) Jarrett's Lessee v. Cooley, 6 H. & J. 258.