596 BROWN v. WALLACE.

It is stated by the trustee, that he caused the lands to be laid off
into several distinct parcels, described by metes and bounds and
number of acres; and that he sold them in that manner; each
parcel as a separate body of land for an amount ascertained by the
number of acres said to be contained within the specified metes
and bounds; and not by the acre alone, or in lots Nos. 1,2, 3, &c.
of an indefinite size, without reference to boundary, or other more
particular description, at so much by the acre, so as to render a
measurement indispensably necessary to ascertain the amount of
the purchase money. In England, a commission may be issued
to ascertain the quantity where the contract is to pay by the acre,
and the quantity is uncertain; (f) but here it has always been
the practice of this court, where its trustee has made a sale at so
much per acre, as a matter of course, to order a survey to ascer-
tain the quantity of land and thereby the amount of the purchase
money, (g)

But that these several parcels of land were sold by the tract, and
were distinctly understood to be sold in that manner by all the bid-
ders present at the sale, is clearly shewn by the explanations in
relation to lot No. 6, which was sold by the acre as a residuum of
the tract called Convenience; but all the other lots, from No. 1 to
No. 11, were sold by the tract; all of them lying within certain
specified metes and bounds made known to the bidders at the time
of the sale. After thus describing one of those lots, the number
of acres is specified with the usual reservation, 'more or less;' and
lot No. 11, after being so described, is said to have been 'laid out
for one hundred and forty-three acres.' And in each case the pur-
chase money is summed up, and the purchaser is reported as hav-
ing agreed to give a designated sum total. What is meant in
general by the phrase, 'more or less,' or 'laid out for so much,' in
conveyances of land in reference to quantity seems to remain as yet
unsettled. The proprietary's instructions fixed it as a rule for the
land office, as to grants from the state, that they should be allowed
to cover no more than ten per cent; but there has been no rule
established as to other grants or conveyances, (h)

There is, however, no direct and satisfactory proof of any de-
ficiency in lot No. 11, as described and sold. It is not shewn

(f) Shovel v. Bogan, 2 Equ. Ca. Abr. 688.—(g) Carter v. Campbell, Gilmer's
Rep. 159.—(k) Townshend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 340; Winch v. Winchester, 1
Ves. & Bea. 375; Portman v. Mill, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 238; Hoffman v. Johnson, 1
Bland, 109; Land Hol. Ass. 253; Andrews v. Scotton, post.