BROWN v. WALLACE. 595

Of this, however, there is no clear proof. But suppose the fact
to be so; it would be strange indeed if any party to a suit, after
the court had decreed his land to be sold, should be able to defeat
the sale; or could afford to the purchaser a sufficient reason for not
paying the purchase money, by merely making a conveyance of
the land to some third person, so as to give to such third person a
pretext of title on which to bring suit against the purchaser from
the court. It is clear, that the whole title of the heirs of the late
William Mitchell to the lands embraced by the deed of the 14th of
September, 1815, was sold by the trustee, or that it was not. If
it was sold, then the subsequent purchaser from those heirs can
have no title; and the title of the purchaser under this court's de-
cree cannot, in this respect, be impeached, (d) If, on the other
hand, their title to the lands described in that deed was not sold
by the trustee to Freeborn Brown, then he has nothing to complain
of; and the whole affair is entirely foreign to the matter now under
consideration. This objection is therefore utterly groundless.

Another point upon which this purchaser rests is, that he bought
by the acre, and that the trustee represented the tract which he,
Brown, bought, called Governs Rupulta, as containing one hundred
and forty-three acres, when in truth it did not contain quite one
hundred and twenty-seven acres; and therefore, that he ought to
have a deduction to the amount of this deficiency.

It is not alleged, that the deficiency is in that part of the lot
which was the inducement to the purchase; or that it is of such a
nature as materially to vary the contract, it is merely a claim for an
allowance on account of short measure; as if by the terms of the
contract a measurement was absolutely necessary to reduce it to
certainty and to ascertain the amount of the purchase money to be
paid.

The position here taken rests upon an assumption of the fact,
that the land was sold only by the acre; or in lots of an indefinite
size at $23 per acre. But according to the trustee's report, such
was not the fact; and there is no satisfactory proof that it was
sold in any other manner than as there stated. In the absence of
clear proof of mistake, misrepresentation or fraud, the ratified re-
port of the trustee is the only evidence of the contract by which
the court can allow itself to be governed; and unless it be so im-
peached, it must be considered as conclusive upon the subject, (e)

(d) Powell Mortg. 547, n. R.—(e) Townshend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 328; Hig-
giason v. Clowes, 15 Ves. 516; Clowes v. Higginson, 1 Ves. & Bea. 524.