1920. Present : De Sampayo J.

ISMAIL v. RATNAPALA.

138-C. R. Galle, 1,930.

Sale by order of Court under the Entail and Settlement Ordinance- Misdescription-Sale set aside by Court-Action against auctioneer by purchaser for refund of commission.

" It is to the party at whose instance a sale takes place that the purchaser must look for repayment, not only of the purchase money, but of the expenses and charges if the sale becomes abortive." Where a purchaser sued the auctioneer for return of commission and charges paid by purchaser,

Held, in the circumstances of the case, that he was not entitled to recover same from the auctioneer.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

De Zoysa, for plaintiff, appellant.

Jayawickreme, for defendant, respondent.

September 17, 1920. DE SAMPAYO J.-

The decision of the question involved in this action depends partly on facts and partly on law. It appears that an order was made by the District Court under the Entail and Settlement Ordinance, 1876, for the sale of half of a certain house, and the defendant, an auctioneer, was appointed to carry out the sale. The sale as advertised by the defendant was half, no