The Court
held that the omission of the sheriff to include the barn in his description of the principal improvements of the first lot mentioned was sufficient to invalidate his sale of that, while the gross inadequacy of the price for which the second lot mentioned sold must invalidate his sale of that. The counsel for the plaintiffs in the writ then made known to the court their desire under these circumstances that his sale of the third lot should be also set aside, and the rule was made absolute.