IN BB Knra. 847 �tîsement had described the interest to be Bold as King's mter- est in said lots, so far as that interest was included in the Eldridge assignment, it might have been inferred that the assignee had concluded not to offer the asset described in the report; but no such purpose can be inferred from the lan- guage used in the advertisement, while its terms do plainly imply that he intended to sell the same asset therein described. The case is clearly one in which the maxim "Faîsa demon- gtratio non nocet" applies. If the assignee had claimed that the mistake affected injuriously the sale, which indeed can- not be presumed, or that the purcbaser in faot did not under- stand that he was buying this asset, except so far as it was covered by the assignment, he could bave applied to the court to set the sale aside on that ground. Not having done so, he cannot repudiate it or treat it as no sale because of the false description. �5. There having been, then, a valid sale, under the order of the court, of this asset of the bankrupt, and that sale having been exeeuted by the payment of the priee, the court had no power to authorize the sale of the property a second time. Its power was clearly limited to one actual sale, by which this property was turned into money. So far as that asset was concerned, the court had exhausted its powers, except to do what was proper to carry it into effect and vest the title in the purchaser. It is immaterial that no deed was ever given, even if the interest was real, and such that the legal title would pass only by deed. It is true that a naked, barren legal title may be conceived to remain vested in the assignee, but not for the use or benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt. They have, through the assignee, already re- ceived the full value of the property in money, to be distrib- uted among them in dividends on their debts. They can claim no more under the bankrupt law. To hold that the court could order it to be sold again, and turned into money, because no deed passed, would be to hold that it bas power to take property in which the creditors have no interest, and distribute it ameng them. No bankrupt law ever gave such a power to a court in bankruptcy» There :^ no analogy be- ����
