ANDREWS v. SCOTTON, 671

Under this decree, the trustee proceeded to make sale of the
land which had been previously sold to Samuel Anderson; and on
the 27th of April, 1829, reported, that he had made sale of it;
upon which, it was Ordered, that the sale should be ratified,
unless cause was shewn to the contrary, before the 27th of June,
then next.

The plaintiff Andrews, by his petition, filed on the 17th of June,
1829, stated, that the sale as reported, had been made for f 3 10
per acre; that he had, by a letter to the trustees, before the day of
sale, offered, and was then willing to give $3 57 per acre, for the
land. He expressly admits, that there was no fraud in the trans-
action; but prays that a new sale may be ordered, so that he may
be let in to bid the amount he had previously offered. The trus-
tee admitted the truth of the facts so stated by Andrews.

18th June, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This petition of the
plaintiff Andrews, having been submitted without remark, the pro-
ceedings were read and considered.

I have before said in this case, that there has been no instance
of opening the biddings here, merely to let in a higher bid; and
this is the first proposition of the kind, that I have any knowledge of
having ever been made to this court. (I) If any small advance in
price, such as that now offered, were to be admitted as a sufficient
ground for letting in a new bidder, to the exclusion of the reported
one, it is obvious, that the practice might greatly embarrass sales
under decrees of this court. By adopting the English practice of
opening the biddings, as it is called, the regularity of public sales
by trustees, as practised here, would be virtually broken in upon,
and destroyed by the court itself; bidders would be discouraged;
sales delayed; and the expense much increased; for it could not
be deemed proper to receive a bid in any form, without allowing a
day to all interested, to come in, and shew cause why the sale
should not be ratified. Upon general principles of convenience
and economy therefore, I deem it improper in any case, to reject a
reported sale, merely to let in a higher bid, where no fraud, mis-
representation or unfairness is pretended or charged. Whereupon
it is Ordered, that the said petition be, and the same is hereby
dismissed with costs.

(l) Bealmere v. Warfield, 1st October, 1830, per Bland, Chancellor, a similar
application to open the biddings, was rejected.