Partition — Order Confirming Sale — Appeal — Parties—Conclusiveness upon Purchaser—Defective Title.—An order confirming a sale in partition is appealable by the purchaser, who becomes a quasi party to the suit, and becomes conclusive upon him upon his failure to appeal therefrom; and he becomes thereby legally hound to complete the purchase, notwithstanding objections made by him to defects in the title.

Id.—Order of Resale at Risk of Purchaser—Notice—Motion—Appeal. Upon the refusal of a purchaser to complete a sale in partition which has been confirmed, the court may order the property resold at the purchaser’s risk; and the purchaser is hound by such order, if he has notice of it, and if not, he should move to vacate or modify the order, and should take an appeal upon the denial of his motion.

Id.—Action for Deficiency—Evidence—Differing Terms upon Sale and Resale.—The purchaser at the first sale, which was confirmed without appeal, when sued for the deficiency arising upon a resale, cannot prove that the terms of the first sale were for a title free from defects, for the purpose of showing that he never became liable as a purchaser; but he may prove such terms, and that the second sale was made expressly at the purchaser’s risk of defects in the title, for the purpose of showing that the conditions of the two sales were different, and that the resale was not a just or legal mode of ascertaining his liability for the deficiency.

Id.—Presumption—Knowledge of Purchaser—Power of Officer—Misleading ¡Representations.—The courts do not hold purchasers to presumptive knowledge of the limits of the power of an officer in making a sale; and where they are misled by his representations as to the state of the title, or of the incumbrances thereon, they are hound by the rule of caveat emytnv.

Id.—Adequacy of Price upon Resale—Confirmation—-Presumption— Estoppel.—Where a larger price was bid upon an original sale, owing to the terms of sale expressly providing for a perfect and valid title, and the price bid upon a resale, which was confirmed, was much less, owing to the terms of sale being expressly at the purchaser’s risk; and no fact or circumstance other than the differing conditions of sale tends to accoun t for the difference in price, it must be presumed that all the difference between the two bids was induced by the terms of the second sale; and where the owners did not object to the confirmation of the second sale upon the ground that the price obtained was inadequate, they arc estopped from denying the adequacy of the price obtained under the conditions of sale; nor can the referee malting the sales deny the terms and conditions of the contract made by him with such purchaser.