1. In this case the appellants are the judgment debtors, and they sought under Section 311 to set aside a sale made under a mortgage decree on the ground of irregularity, alleging that they had sustained substantial injury by reason of that irregularity, the full price for the property not having been obtained. The plaintiff in the suit in which the property was sold was a mortgagee, and he obtained leave to bid, and purchased two lots at the sale.
2. Now it appears that his uncle Radhamohun, who is joint in estate and lives in commensality with him, had been appointed by the Court of Wards the manager of one of the infant defendants; and this purchase by the plaintiff-holder, was in fact a purchase for the benefit of the joint 'family, as is not denied by the pleader for the decree-holder. Now some evidence was read before us, showing that there was irregularity with respect to one of 'these lots, in publishing the proclamation of sale on the premises, and that the full price was not obtained for the properties; but we think it is. not necessary.