ANDREWS v. SCOTTON. 633

vall's Delight; that he believes, that the lines of the several neigh-
bouring tracts of land, run into and take off a great part of the
woodland; and that the woodland was the principal inducement
to his purchasing. As the property did not, according to the alle-
gations contained in the petition, correspond with the representa-
tion made by the trustee, it is prayed that the sale may be set
aside or annulled.

Preparatory to a decision, an order passed for laying down the
land that was sold, as well as any other land that might be deemed
by the parties necessary for the illustration of the matter in contro-
versy.

On examining the plot returned by the surveyor, it appears, that
the trustee has laid down the land which he sold to the petitioner,
and this location is not counter-located; and therefore, admitted to
be the land purchased. The quantity is one hundred and forty-one
and three-quarter acres, of which, three roods are within the lines
of a deed executed by Charles Carroll to Humphrey Hogan, on the
16th of July, 1723.

It seems to appear, that Charles Carroll was the owner of the
whole of the tract of land, which was conveyed by him to different
persons; and before it can be known whether the three roods are
the property of those claiming under Hogan, or belonging to the
estate of Scotton, it is necessary to see the other transfers; and if
Hogan's title is the eldest, yet a title to it may have been ac-
quired by possession; for as it is laid down as a part of the land
sold, it is to be presumed, Scotton was in possession at the time
of his death.

Where a tract of land is sold, and it turns out to be materially
varient from the representation, the contract may be set aside.
Where a tract is sold as containing a given quantity of acres,
when it is discovered that less is included than was conceived at
the time of the sale, a deduction will be made, unless the deficiency
shall be such as would have prevented the contract, if known at
the time of the purchase; that is, the deficiency appearing to be in
that part which was the chief inducement to the purchase. But in
this case, in every respect, the petitioner has failed to support his
allegations. He has not proved that the trustee represented to
him, that he sold a piece of woodland, as part of Duvall's Delight,
which is included in the lines of neighbouring tracts. He has laid
down no interfering tract whatever; nor if the right of the trustee
to sell three roods, did not exist, and it could not exist unless it was