658 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

reported to the court as the purchaser of the property sold by the
appellee, he cannot be compelled to complete the purchase by pay-
ing the purchase money. It does not appear, it is true, that the
trustee in this case, has proceeded according to the usual practice
of the court, in making a formal report of his sale; but it appears
by the proceedings, that on the 9th of October, 1822, the appel-
lant filed his petition to the Chancellor, in which he stated, that he
had contracted with the appellee for the purchase of the land in
question, supposed to contain one hundred and forty acres, at, and
for the sum of f 11 per acre, and by the report of the trustee, (the
appellee,) was returned the purchaser, and prayed that the sale
made and reported, might not be confirmed. On the coming in of
the answer of the appellee, and the return of depositions, which
were taken in pursuance of the Chancellor's order, and upon the
return of the locations made by the sheriff of the county, under the
same authority, the Chancellor passed an order ratifying and con-
firming the sale, which order, on appeal, received the sanction of
this court.

It is, therefore, now too late for the appellant to object that he
was not reported, in the more formal and usual way, to the Court
of Chancery, as the purchaser of the property. The trustee, more-
over, in answering the petition of the appellant, against the ratifi-
cation of the sale, refers to, and makes a part of his answer, the
written contract of sale to the appellant, executed by both the ap-
pellant and appellee, which mentions fully, the terms of sale, and
which is understood to be the sale ratified by the Chancellor.
Under this view of the subject, this court are of opinion that there
is nothing in the objection that the appellant was not reported to
the court as the purchaser of the property, and that a good title
cannot be conveyed to him in consequence of this irregularity in
the proceedings.

It has been contended that the Court of Chancery has no power,
by a summary proceeding, to compel a purchaser at a trustee's
sale, made under the authority of its decree, to complete his pur-
chase by enforcing the payment of the purchase money. This
objection, it is conceived, cannot be available in the case now
under consideration. The trustee did not take either notes or
bonds for the payment of the purchase money, upon which a suit
or suits at law could have been instituted, but relied solely upon
the liability of the purchaser arising from the contract of sale,
which was not binding upon either party until ratified by the