592 BROWN v. WALLACE.

WUliam, as his surety for the purchase money; upon which
bond, after it became due, the defendant Wallace, brought suit and
obtained judgment, from which these plaintiffs appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, at June term,
1817. That the plaintiff Freeborn, had paid to this defendant, the
trustee, on the 18th of January, 1818, f 900, in part satisfaction of
the judgment. The bill then further stated, that this plaintiff
Freeborn, was not put into possession of the land so purchased by
him until the month of November next after the day of sale; that
the tract had been found to contain only one hundred and twenty-
six acres, three-quarters and twenty-four perches; and therefore,
he claims an allowance for deficiency; that the heirs of William
Mitchell, deceased, had by a deed dated on the 14th of September,
1815, sold and conveyed a part of this very land to Carvill Cooley,
and Charles Cooley, who had taken possession accordingly; that
a suit in chancery had been instituted by Samuel Gover, who
claimed by a title paramount, against the heirs of William Mitchell,
deceased, for the recovery of this land; and that an action of
ejectment was about to be brought by one Philip Gover, for the
recovery of the same land, &c. Whereupon the bill prayed for an
injunction to stay execution upon the said judgment. And an
injunction was granted accordingly, as prayed.

To this bill, the defendant Wallace, answered, and admitted the
proceedings in the High Court of Chancery as stated; and said,
that he had only sold to the plaintiff Freeborn, the interest which
the heirs of James Mitchell and William Mitchell, had in the land ;
and that he did not pretend to warrant the title; that the plaintiff
Freeborn, was put into possession soon after he gave bond for the
purchase money; that at the time of sale, a plot of the land was
exhibited, and the sale was made near the land, which was shewn
to the plaintiff Freeborn, so that he could not have been mistaken
with regard to it; that this trustee did not sell to the plaintiff
Freeborn, any land claimed by the Cooleys; and that the plaintiff
Freeborn, was told of, and had full knowledge of the claim of the
Govers, on the day of the sale.

These plaintiffs, by a supplemental bill, filed on the 17th of
August, 1824, stated, that Robert Gover had obtained judgment
against them, and turned them out of possession of the land pur-
chased by the plaintiff Freeborn. In answer to which, the defen-
dant Wallace, alleged, that the said judgment had been obtained
•entirely by the negligence and default of the plaintiffs.