
    Josiah Norris versus John Howe.
    An administrator, licensed to sell the real estate of his intestate, had authority before the statute of 1817, c. 190, to adjourn the sale, acting therein bond fide, and without fraud.
    This was a writ of entry sur disseisin, and was tried on the general issue at the last September term, in this county, before Wilde, J. The demandant claimed to hold the demanded premises under a conveyance from the administrators * of one John Woodman, dated June 18,1810. The deed of the administrators was objected to because that, having been duly authorized to make sale of all the real estate of their intestate, and having given the bond and taken the oath required by law, they gave due notice of the intended sale to be had on the 14th of May, 1810, and the sale was adjourned from that day to the said 18th of June.
    In support of this objection, Foote, for the tenant, argued that administrators, under a license of court to sell the real estate of their intestates, had no authority to adjourn such sale. If, from any cause, a purchaser should not offer at the time advertised, the duty of the administrators would be to appoint another day for the sale, of which like public notice should be given as at first. The practice of adjourning sales, at the will of administrators, opens a door for fraud and management between them and a purchaser whom they may be disposed to favor.
    One claiming under a statute must show that the statute has been exactly pursued.  This authority to adjourn was not given by the statutes in force at the time this transaction took place; and the special provision for the purpose in the late statute on this subject  shows the sense of the legislature, that no such power previously existed. A usage may aid to explain a doubtful statute, but ought not to be attended to in construing one which cannot admit of different interpretations.  The case of Caldwell vs. Eaton 
       is in point to show the strict conformity to the provisions of a statute which is required in those who would justify under it.
    
      
       12 Mass. Rep. 503, Crouch & Ux. vs. Eveleth.
      
    
    
      
      
        Stat. 1817, c. 190, § 13.
    
    
      
       1 D. & E. 728, The King vs. Hogg, per Grose, J.
    
    
      
       5 Mass. Rep. 399
    
   Sed per Curiam.

It might often occur, from the extremity of the weather, or from other unavoidable causes, that no bidders would appear at the time and place appointed, by an administrator, for the sale of the estate of his intestate. In such case, it would be his duty to adjourn the sale. If, herein, he should act bona fide, and without fraud, his doings must be supported. No suggestión of improper motive is *made as to the sale in this case. The objection made by the tenant cannot, therefore, prevail.

Williams for the demandant.  