JUDGMENT
1. In this case the respondent is an assignee of a mortgage decree. The 9th defendant to the suit put in a petition asking that a certain item (Item No. 2) of the proprety described in decree should be sold after the other items on the ground thatitem, No. 2 had been mortgaged to him and was in his possession An order was made by the Court with the original decree-holder’s consent in the terrns of this petition. The original decree-holder afterwards assigned his decree to the respondent. Item No. 2 was. after wards sold by the respondent in contravention of the terms of this order. The respondent takes the decree subject to any equities or limitations attached to it. He is in no better position than the original decree-holder. We think the sale must be set aside on the ground that it was in contravention of an order of Court which the Court was perfectly competent to make. The appeal will be allowed with costs here and in the Court below, and the sale of item No. 2 will be set aside.
