ART. 66] RATIFICATION OF SALE—RE-SALE. 1547

court shall have full power to hear and determine any objec-
tions which may be filed against such sale by any person
interested in the property and may confirm or set aside said
sale.

Wilson v. Watts, 9 Md. 356. Gayle v Fattle, 14 Md. 69. White v. Mal-
colm, 15 Md 541. Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md 66. Black v. Carroll, 24 Md.
252 Cockey v. Cole, 28 Md 283 Warfield v. Ross, 38 Md. 85. Horsey v.
Hough, 38 Md. 130. Warfield v. Dorsey, 39 Md. 299. Warehime v. Carroll
Co. Build. Ass'n, 44 Md. 512. Bank of Commerce v. Lanahan, 45 Md. 396.
Carroll v. Kershner, 47 Md. 262. Lamm v. Port Deposit Ass'n, 49 Md. 233.
Frostburg Mutual Build. Ass'n v. Lowdermilk, 50 Md 179. Mahoney v.
Mackubin, 52 Md. 357. Webb v. Haeffer, 53 Md. 190. Patapsco Guano Co.
v. Elder, 53 Md. 464 Dirks v. Humbird, 54 Md. 399. Loeber v. Eckes, 55
Md. 1. Wicks v. Westcott, 59 Md. 270. White v. McClellan, 62 Md. 347.
Dickerson v. Small, 64 Md. 395. Chilton v. Brooks, 69 Md. 587. Bernstein
v. Hobelman, 70 Md. 29. Schaeffer v. Bond, 70 Md. 480. Chilton v Brooks,
71 Md. 445. Condon v. Maynard, 71 Md. 601. Roberts v. Loyola Ass'n, 74
Md. 1 Haskey v. James, 75 Md. 568. Albert v Hamilton, 76 Md 307.
Hanover Ins Co. v. Brown, 77 Md. 71. West Md. etc. Co. v. Goodwin, 77
Md 271. Heider v. Bladen; 83 Md. 243. Hughes v. Riggs, 84 Md. 502.
Richardson v. Owings, 86 Md. 693. Carroll v. Hutton, 68 Md. 676. Carroll
v Hutton, 91 Md. 379. Bentley v. Beacham, 91 Md. 678. Aukam v. Zant-
zinger, 94 Md. 426.

1888, art. 66, sec. 10. 1860, art. 64, sec. 9. 1826, ch. 192, sec. 5.

10. If such sale be set aside by the court, a re-sale may be
ordered to be made by the party who made the previous sale,
or the court may, if justice requires it, appoint a trustee to sell
the same.

Reeside v. Peter, 35 Md. 220. Basshor v. Stewart, 54 Md. 380. Dircks v.
Logsdon, 59 Md. 177. Chilton v. Brooks, 69 Md. 587.

Ibid. sec. 11. 1860, art. 64, sec. 10. 1826, ch. 192, sec. 4 1836, ch. 249, sec. 7.

11. All such sales, when confirmed by the court and the
purchase money is paid, shall pass all the title which the
mortgagor had in the said mortgaged premises at the time of
the recording of the mortgage.

Warfield v. Ross, 38 Md. 85 Leonard 11. Groome, 47 Md. 504. Dircks v.
Logsdon, 59 Md. 177. Duval v. Becker, 81 Md. 549.

Ibid. sec. 12. 1860, art. 64, sec. 11. 1826, ch. 192, sec. 5. 1836,
ch. 249, sec. 8.

12. Upon a sale of such mortgaged premises, any person
claiming an interest in the equity of redemption may apply to
the court confirming the sale to have the surplus of the pro-