430 CHANCERY. [ART. 16

direct the investment of the proceeds of sale or the limitations of the
reversion and rent, as the case may be, so as to enure in like manner
as by the original grant to the use of the same parties who would be
entitled to the land sold or leased, and all such decrees, if all the per-
sons are parties who would be entitled if the contingency had happened
at the date of the decree, shall bind all persons whether in being or not,
who claim or may claim any interest in said land under any of the
parties to said decree, or under any person from whom any of the
parties to such decree claim, or from or under or by the original deed
or will by which such particular, limited or conditional estates, with
remainders or executory devises, were created.

Primary purpose of this section. This section extends the doctrine of
representation to the cases therein mentioned by providing that the parties
In being shall represent unborn parties. The constitutionality of this sec-
tion has never been called in question, and it confers upon equity jurisdiction
which it did not theretofore have. Klugan Packing Assn. v. Lloyd, 110 Md. 623.
Under this section a farm devised to the wife and children of L., upon
which a charge is made for the support of L. and his family, during life,
may be sold. Disposition of proceeds. Object of this section. The fact
that the will shows an intention that the life tenant shall hold a farm for
the benefit of himself and family, does not defeat the application of this
section. Downes v. Long. 79 Md. 384.

All parties in interest and In being who would be entitled, if the con-
tingency had happened at the date of the decree, must be parties, and a sale
must appear (either by proof or admissions of parties competent to bind them-
selves), to be advantageous, otherwise the court has no jurisdiction. These
conditions must be complied with at the date of the decree. Ball v. Safe
Deposit Co., 92 Md. 506; Snook v. Munday. 90 Md. 702; Devecmon v. Shaw.
70 Md. 228. And see Seal-lett v. Robinson, 112 Md. 206.

A bill under this section on behalf of an infant should be filed in the
infant's name, but its being filed in the name of the guardian is an irregu-
larity which, as long as it stands unreserved, does not affect the binding
nature of the decree. Where a purchaser appeals from an order ratifying the
sale, the decree directing the sale is not open for review. Where the court
has jurisdiction the question of the proof that the sale was advantageous,
will not be inquired into upon the purchaser's appeal. Newbold v. Schlens.
66 Md. 587.

If the court has jurisdiction, mere irregularities in the proceedings or proof,
will not sustain exceptions to the sale by the purchaser. Bensou v. Yellott.
76 Md. 168; Rieman v. Von Kapff, 76 Md. 421; Newbold v. Schlens, 66 Md.
587.

This section held to afford the only means for a sale of ground-rents
devised for life, with remainders over. Murphy v. Coale, 107 Md. 209.

The court has a right to decree a sale at the instance of a life tenant:
jurisdiction under this section upheld. Krone v. Linville, 31 Md. 144.

In a proper case, equity will decree a sale under this section for the purpose

of using the proceeds to compromise litigation. Caldwell v. Brown, 60 Md. 296.

For cases holding that the plaintiff had no such Interest in the property

as enabled him to ask for a sale under this section, see Bannon v. Comegys.

69 Md. 438; Newbold v. Schlens, 66 Md. 589.

Unborn children and grandchildren held to be bound, along with parties
In being, under the act of 1862. ch. 156. Dunnington v. Evans. 79 Md. 91.
And see Benson v. Yellott, 76 Md. 109.

For cases involving the law on the subject of this section prior to its
adoption, see Long v. Long. 62 Md. 33; Downin v. Sprecher. 33 Md. 479; Ball
v. Safe Deposit Co., 92 Md. 506. Cf. Seeger v. Hunting, 78 Md. 54.

Cited but not construed in Carlin v. Harris, 100 Md. 56; Hyatt v. Vanneck.
82 Md. 474; Roche v. Waters, 72 Md. 272: Long v. Long, 62 Md. 67 (see also
dissenting opinion, page 85); Druid, etc., Co. v. Oettinger, 53 Md. 63: Shreve
v. Shreve. 43 Md. 403; Goldsborough v. Martin. 41 Md. 505.