ANDREWS v. SCOTTON, 647

by the purchaser, whatever may be either its patent or latent de-
fects, (p) But if the trustee makes any promise or representation
to the bidder, before the sale, that the estate shall be, or is clear of
all incumbrances, or that the title is better or different from that
to be traced from the proceedings, and any such claims should
afterwards appear, or be set up, the sale will be annulled. But
this relief would be granted to the purchaser on the ground of
misrepresentation or fraud, and not on that of a mere defect of
tide, as in cases between party and party.

After a sale has been ratified, the court, in England, will not
rescind the order, and open the biddings without strong induce-
ments, (q) So in this state, after a sale has been made and re-
ported, and before it has been ratified, it is open to all objections.
And, if objected to, unless it should, on examination, turn out to
be, in all respects, fair and proper, it will not be ratified. But,
after it has been confirmed, the purchaser can only obtain relief by
bill or petition; and thus calling the litigating parties to the suit
again before the court to answer, repel, and remove the objections
which he may so make, if they can.

(p) GOODWIN v. SCOTT.—The complainants were purchasers under a decree of
the defendants, who were the trustees. A suit at law had been brought against
them by the trustees for the purchase money; and they now brought this bill,
having discovered, as they alleged, that the land was deficient in quantity, and that
the trustees could make no title, because there were other incumbrances not made
known at the time of sale.

September, 1806.-—KILTY, Chancellor.—The right and title of the parties to the
original suit, whatever it might be, was to be sold; and no person, whether part
buyer or part seller, was bound to examine into the title of the estate, which was in
custodia legis, and vested in the trustees, who were not competent to make the ob-
jection of any latent or obvious defect. In this state it has been repeatedly declared
that, in sales under a decree of this court, which are made subject to the Chancel-
lor's approbation and ratification, any circumstances shewing that such sales are in-
jurious to the complainants, or that better sales might reasonably and probably have
been made, are sufficient to set them aside. This principle to be just, should be re-
ciprocal and mutual. And the ratification that has been given, can make no differ-
ence as to the present claim. Under all the circumstances, the Chancellor vacated
the sale for one of the lots, and made the injunction to stay the proceedings at law
in part perpetual. And the lot, the sale of which was thus annulled, was ordered to
be again sold entire, and not by the acre. It was objected, that inasmuch as a sur-
vey was made of the lands and a plot exhibited, the smallest variation would destroy
the contract The true location, however, is not so much the point in dispute as
the substantial value of the land, and if that is not altered the difference forms no
ground of relief. Different surveyors have made it different in quantity, and if the
purchaser has an allowance for the deficiency, it is all he can require.

(q) Sugd. Vend. & Pur. 47.