130 A. 830
Md.
1925
Urner, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the case of Shirk v. Soper et al., Trustees, 144 Md. 269, an order ratifying a sale of certain real estate by the trustees was reversed on the ground that the sale was made for an inadequate price, but the opinion of this Court stated that the reversal would not “affect any right which the purchaser may have in the property sold under the decree.” The reason for this reservation was that nо appeal bond had been filed, and the lower court had provided that the operation of the ordеr ratifying the sale should not be stayed by the appeal. The discretionary power of the court to so limit the effect of such an appeal is expressly conferred by article 5, section 33, of the Code. In view of that stаtutory provision, as construed and applied in prior decisions, we were constrained to hold that the rights of the purchaser were unaffected by the reversal of the order ratifying the sale. The question was fully discussed in the opinion, delivered by Judge Offutt, which recognized the possibility of hardships *697 resulting from the existing statute, but stated our inability ‍​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍to prevent suсh consequences of its operation.

After the case had been remanded, an audit was filed accounting for and distributing the proceeds of the ratified sale which the appeal had disputed. Exceptions to thé audit were filed by Henry Shirk and James W. Bowers, as attorneys and solicitors, because of the disallowance of their clаim of compensation for professional services in Mr. Shirk’s individual interest in the course of the proceedings. Mr. Shirk also, by virtue of his personal interest in the trust estate, excepted to the audit on the theory that, no title had pаssed to the purchaser, and, therefore, no part of the purchase money should be included in the audit for distributiоn. The exceptions were overruled, and from an order ratifying the audit and directing the trustees, on their petition fоr instructions, to institute no proceedings ag'ainst the purchaser, an appeal was taken by the exceрtants.

By a motion to dismiss the appeal it is shown, without denial, that after the ratification of the audit, Mr. Shirk wrote a letter ‍​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍to the trustees, requesting the distribution of the money “as audited,” and that the trustees accordingly disbursed the funds.

. As counsel for one of the parties, Messrs. Bowers and Shirk have no such interest in the case as entitles them to appeal frоm the order overruling their exceptions to the auditor’s disallowance of the fee which they claimed. This is definitely settled by the decisions in Culbreth v. Kries, 144 Md. 497; Karr v. Shirk, 142 Md. 118; and Marshall v. Dobler & Mudge, 97 Md. 555.

Any right which Mr. Shirk may have had, in his individual capacity as a party, to appeal from the ordеr ratifying the audit, has been waived by his request, with which the trustees complied, that the funds be distributed as the audit prescribed. ‍​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍Upоn the plainest principles of estoppel, he is prevented from successfully disputing a disposition of funds thus madе with his consent. The question sought to be presented by his appeal from the order directing the trustees *698 not to proceed against the corporation from which they received the audited purchase money is conсluded 'by the decision on the appeal from the order by which the sale was confirmed. It is argued that the question is subject to the principle of a ruling in the later case of Herman v. Mondawmin Building & Loan Assn, 145 Md. 480. The statutory rule that an appeal from a decree in equity shall not suspend its operation, unless a bond be given as required by law, was held in ‍​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍that case not to be “аvailable to protect a title vested under a purchase which has been unfairly accomplished.” The оpinion cited the cases of Raith v. Building & Loan Assn., 140 Md. 546; Garritee v. Popplein, 73 Md. 324, and Lenderking v. Rosenthal, 63 Md. 28, as authority for the proposition that the title acquired by a purchaser will nоt be defeated by a reversal of the decree of sale or the order of 'ratification, on an appeal prosecuted without the filing of an appeal bond, unless there was “unfairness or collusion in making the sale by the trustee,” and the conduct attributed by the evidence to the purchaser in the Herman case was held to -bring it “within the reason and equity of the principle upon which the exception to the general rule is based.” In that сase the purchaser obtained the property for an inadequate price by interfering with the freedom оf competition at a sale under a mortgage. Ho improper conduct prejudicing the salevis imputed to the purchaser in the present case, and no unfairness is attributable to the trustees. They acted in the honest еxercise of their judgment, but, in the opinion of this -Court, the property was not offered for sale under favorable conditions. The record on the former appeal required us to hold that the rights of the purchaser under the ratifiсation of the sale were not affected by our decision of the case, and we find no occasion on the present appeal to change that conclusion. But as to this question also Mr. Shirk must be held to have waived his right of appeal by his consent to the disbursement of the proceeds of sale in pursuance of the audit after its ratification by the court. As one of the persons entitled to the trust estate, he was *699 benefited by the distribution of the money which the purchaser had paid. The exceptions to the audit were based in part upon the theоry that the distribution ‍​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍of the fund would preclude any action by the trustees in derogation of the sale which they had reported and which the court below had ap>proved. Upon that obviously just theory the agreement of Mr. Shirk to the disbursemеnt as audited of the money received from the purchaser is a bar to this appeal from an order instructing the trustees not to question the purchaser’s rights.

Appeal dismissed.