
    Richmond.
    Worsham v. Hardaway’s adm'r.
    
    A Court of Equity will not interfere to give relief to a purchaser under a decree of a Court having jurisdiction of the subject, orto his sureties, for errors in the decree, or the proceedings under it, where the report of the commissioners has been confirmed.
    In 1812 the County Court of Dinwiddie made a decree in a cause depending therein between the heirs of 
      Thomas Stewart, some of whom were infants, by which Lndson Worsham and others were appointed commissioners to sell a tract of land; and were directed to di- * vide the proceeds among the parties in proportions specified in the decree. In the same year the commission-J ers sold the land on a credit of one year, and John Al-friend became the purchaser, at the price of 1000 dollars 33 cents, and executed his bond for the amount with Peter M. Hardaway as his surety. Alfriend was put into possession of the land, and lived upon it until his death, some two or three years, and it was afterwards rented out for two or three years by his administrators ; of whom said Hardaway was one.
    The purchase money not having been paid, the commissioners, after the death of Alfriend, brought a suit upon the bond against Hardaway, and recovered a judgment; whereupon in 1818 Hardaway enjoined the judgment. The grounds on which he asked for an injunction were, that the commissioners had made no report of their proceedings; that no conveyance had been made to the purchaser; that a suit was depending in the Chancery Court of Richmond by some of the slaves of Thomas Stewart against his heirs, to set up a will, which if the plaintiffs were successful would annul the sale; and that the decree directing the sale was liable to be reversed by the infant parties when they came of age, for errors apparent in the proceedings.
    In November 1818, the commissioners reported the sale of the land to Alfriend in 1812, to the County Court of Dinwiddie; and in 1821 that Court confirmed the report. In the same year the commissioners answered Hardaway's bill, insisting that Alfriend had been put into possession, which he and his representatives continued to hold. And as to the suit referred to in the bill, it was pending at the time of the sale, and materially affected the price of the land.
    
      The cause lingered on the docket until the death of Peter M. Hardaway, and it was afterwards dismissed for want of prosecution. The commissioners then brought a suit against William French, the surety of Hardaway in the injunction bond; the estate of both Hardaway and Alfriend being then insolvent. And then in 1831 William E. Hardaway adm’r of Peter M. Hardaway, obtained an injunction to restrain the surviving commissioners from proceeding upon the judgment against Hardaway, and also from proceeding against French; who, however, was not made a party. He referred in his bill to the proceedings in the former cause, and stated that his own health had been so bad that he had not been able to attend to the case, and it had therefore been dismissed; though without a decision upon any question involved therein. He charged that the commissioners had not yet made any conveyance of the land to the purchaser or his heirs; that the decree of the County Court was liable to be reversed for reasons appearing on the face of it, and for errors in the antecedent proceedings, and therefore no valid title could be made to the heirs of the purchaser for the land; and that persons claiming to be heirs of Thomas Stewart, and as such entitled to share in the proceeds of the sale of the land, had been in possession thereof for many years.
    
      Worsham, who was the only surviving commissioner, answered the bill. It appeared that the suit brought by the slaves of Stewart against his heirs, had been decided in 1827, against the plaintiffs; and that in 1829 the heirs of Alfriend had obtained a decree in the County Court of Dinwiddie for a sale of the land, and a division of the proceeds among them; though the land had not been sold. And it was denied in the answer, and did trot appear from the evidence, that Stmoart’s heirs had ever taken possession since the sale.
    
      The cause came on to be heard in 1840, when the Court below perpetuated the injunction with costs; and thereupon Worsham applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    
      Spooner, for the appellant.
    
      Macfarland & Rhodes, for the appellee.
   The Court reversed the decree, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the bill.  