
    Goare v. Beuhring.
    July, 1835,
    Lewisburg.
    (Absent Brooke and Carr, J.)
    Chancery Court — Decree for Sale of Land — Equitable Title. — It is a general rule, that a court of equity ought not to decree a sale of an equitable title in land, but if a decree for sale of Hie land "be proper, should first direct the legal title to be perfected, and then decree a sale of that.
    Sometime prior to the 21st January 1808, John Lane sold a parcel of 70 acres of land lying in tne county of Logan, then part of the county of Giles, to Absalom Stewart, for 300 dollars; and Stewart paid the purchase money, and received possession. On the 21st January 1808, Stewart sold the land to Mark Duncan, for 300 dollars, of which Duncan, paid 200 dollars, and gave Stewart his bond for 100 dollars, payable the first January 1810; whereupon Stewart gave possession to Duncan, and executed a bond to him, with condition to convey him a good title in fee on or before the 25th December 1808. In December 1812, Stewart obtained *from his vendor Lane, a written promise to convey the title whenever he should be required ; but no conveyance of the title was ever made by Lane, and none was ever made by Stewart to his vendee Duncan. In March 1810, Duncan sold the land to Thomas Christian, gave him possession of it, and assigned to him Stewart’s bond to convey the title; and, in November 1823, Christian sold the land to Joseph Goare, and, in like manner, gave him possession, and assigned him Stewart’s title bond. Duncan’s bond to Stewart, for 100 dollars of the purchase money payable the 1st January 1810, remained still unpaid; and of this Goare, at the time of his purchase of the land from Christian, had notice. And, in July 1824, Stewart assigned Duncan’s bond for 100 dollars, and all his Stewart’s claim upon the land, to Frederick Beuhring.
    Beuhring filed a bill in chancery, in the county court of Logan, against Goare, Duncan, the infant heirs of Lane ‘who was now dead, and Stewart who was a nonresident, — stating the facts, chargingthat Duncan was insolvent, and praying that the land in the hands of Goare, might be subjected to the payment of the 100 dollars with interest, due from Duncan to Stewart on account of the purchase money which Duncan contracted to pay for the land, and assigned by Stewart to the plaintiff. The proceedings in the county court were irregular; and that court made a decree for the plaintiff which was erroneous in its details. The defendant appealed to the superiour court of chancery of Greenbrier, which reversed the decree, and retained the cause; and it was afterwards transferred to the circuit superiour court of Logan, where it was regularly matured for hearing as to all the parties, and the facts of the case, as above stated, were clearly proved.
    At May term 1833, the circuit superiour court decreed, that, unless the defendant Duncan or Goare should pay to a commissioner specially appointed by the court *to receive the payment, the debt of 100 dollars with interest from the 21st January 1810, the land should be sold by a commissioner appointed for the purpose, after due advertisement &c. on a credit of six and twelve months, taking bonds with surety for the purchase money; and that the commissioner should report his proceedings under this decree, in order to a final decree. From this decree, this court, upon the petition of the defendant Goare, allowed an appeal.
    The case was submitted by Smith for the appellant and Summers for the appellee, without argument.
    
      
      The principal case is cited and approved in Roberts v. Roberts, 13 Gratt. 641. See Rossett v. Fisher, 11 Gratt. 492, and note.
      
    
   TUCKER, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court — That the decree was erroneous in this, that the court ought to have directed a conveyance in fee simple of the land in the proceedings mentioned, to have been executed to the defendant Goare by a commissioner, for and on behalf of the infant heirs of Lane, with special warranty, and for and on behalf of the absent defendant Stewart, with like warranty; and that a sale of the premises should not have been directed before the execution of such deed; this court being of opinion, that, as a general rule, the sales of mere equitable titles, ought not to be decreed, since such sales lead to sacrifices, as bidders must purchase in a state of doubt and uncertainty, altogether unpropitious to a fair and advantageous sale. And that, therefore, the decree should be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded to the circuit superiour court, to be there proceeded in according to the principles above declared.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded &c.  