BROWN v. WALLACE. 599

And even supposing it to be true, that the instrument of the 29th of
April, 1812, had an influence upon the trustee and the Chancellor
in making and finally ratifying the sale, they were certainly right in
thus consulting the convenience of the parties. And if, in truth,
more land had been improperly sold than was absolutely necessary
to meet the purposes of the suit, it is clear that a purchaser cannot
be allowed to come in and object to the sale on that account, (k)

I am, therefore, of opinion that the validity of this sale to Free-
born Brown cannot be affected by any thing that has been shewn
on this ground.

This purchaser asks a recision of the sale, in the next place,
upon the ground that suits have been instituted in which it is al-
leged, and appears that neither the late James Mitchell, the ances-
tor of the two plaintiffs, nor the late William Mitchell, the ances-
tor of the defendants, to the decree of the 10th of March, 1812,
under which the land was sold, had any title to it; and that in ,pne
of those suits, an action of ejectment, a judgment had been en-
tered against the casual ejector, and Freeborn Brown had been
actually turned out of possession; and, therefore, as the court
cannot make to this purchaser a good title, he ought not to be
compelled to pay the purchase money.

In England, it seems that when lands are decreed to be sold,
the court, in most instances, undertakes to sell a good title; and,
therefore, it is common, in such cases, to make a reference to a
master to see whether a good title can be made or not to the pur-
chaser, who will not be compelled to take a doubtful title. (I) In
Maryland, the course has always been different; here, as to all
judicial sales, the rule caveat emptor applies, (m) The court, in
no case, undertakes to sell any thing more than the title of the par-
ties to the suit; and consequently it allows of no inquiry into the
title at the instance of a purchaser, or any one else. The court
makes no warranty, of any kind, of the title sold by its trustee;
and, therefore, cannot listen to any objection as to defect of title,
or be involved in any inquiry into its validity, (n)

(k) Lutwych v.Winford, 2 Bro. C. C. 248; Burke v. Crosbie, 1 Ball & Bea. 501.
—(2) Marlow v. Smith, 2 P. Will. 198; Shaw v. Wright, 3 Ves. 22; Noel v. Wes-
ton, Coop. Rep. 138; Coffin v. Cooper, 14 Ves. 205; Roffey v. Shallcross, 4 Mad.
227; Eyton v. Dicken, 2 Exch. Rep. 118.—(m) Ridgely v. Gartrell, 3 H. & McH.
450; The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat. 644; Finley v. Bank U. S., 11 Wheat, 307.—
(n) Toulmin v. Steere, 3 Meriv. 223; Palmer v. Humphrey, Cro. Eliz. 584; Gilbert
Exeeu. 35; 2 Harri. Pra. Cha. 150; 1 Newl Pra. Cha. 330.