ANDREWS v. SCOTTON. 639

that he considered the bidder or purchaser as a contracting party,
on the one side, dealing with the court as the contracting party on

After that the Chancellor received what, on first sight, he supposed a private
sealed letter, but under the cover, containing no letter, he found enclosed a petition
with thirty-two signatures, several of which he could not read, stating, in effect, as
an objection to the sale, that it was not made as expected; that the land was sold
entire; that if sold in parcels it would have commanded more money; and that the
signers wished and intended to become purchasers, provided the land had been laid
off in parcels so as to suit them. The said petition also contained expressions
highly injurious to the characters of the trustees and the purchaser; and at the
same time plainly declared, that the petitioners would apply for legislative aid,
unless the Chancellor would set aside the sale as fraudulent and villanous.

Although the petition came in so questionable a way, and was so insulting to the
Chancellor, calculated as it plainly appeared, to intimidate him from the free exer-
cise of his own judgment, and to control even his conscience; although he consi-
dered it as an attempt eventually to interrupt or defile the pure stream of justice, he
sent the petition, such as it was, to the Chancery office, to be there filed, and to
stand as an objection to the sale.

It has always been his practice, when an objection is made to a sale, to wait un-
til the day appointed by his conditional order of ratification; and upon application,
on or after that day, to appoint a time for hearing the objection, if any there be
made. No application has been since made by any of the signers of the petition, or
by any person in their behalf.

But on this day an application has been made by the trustees, on their own ac-
count, and in behalf of the purchaser; and the Chancellor thereupon proceeded to
an examination of all the papers, in order that he might determine on what is proper
to be done. Amongst these papers he finds several instruments of writing, by
which a considerable number (about one-half) of the persons whose names are sub-
scribed to the petition, have prayed, in effect, that they may not be considered as
petitioners against the sale. Not one of the others has come forward, either in
person or by a solicitor or agent, or by writing, to support the petition. On the
other hand, the party most interested in the sale has filed a petition, stating that
the sale has been with his perfect approbation; and most powerful reasons are
assigned by him wherefore it was so approved.

But let it be considered who are the persons in contemplation, of either law or
equity, interested in the sale. Not surely a person who was neither the mortgagor
nor a mortgagee, nor claiming under either mortgagor or mortgagee, nor claiming
under the state of Maryland. Not surely the man who conceives himself interested
merely because he wished to become a purchaser, and who was disappointed be-
cause the land was not laid off in such parcels as to suit his convenience. In short,
it was only a mortgagee, or the state, which was truly interested in the sale. One
mortgagee, and the principal one, as aforesaid, has expressed entire approbation.
No objection has been made on the part of the state, or of any other truly interested
person, although notice has been duly given. And upon the whole, the Chancellor
perceives no reason wherefore the sale should not be immediately ratified; protesting
however, contrary to a point made by the trustee, that if a reasonable objection had
appeared, he would have considered it as immaterial by whom made. Having the
control of sales, he deems it his duty to avail himself of any information whatever,
and never, knowingly, will he ratify a fraudulent, unfair, or unreasonable sale.
He will, however, always make a distinction between volunteer objectors and ob-