JUDGMENT 1. No doubt the decree does not contain any direction for sale. But subsequent to the passing of the decree, there were applications by the decree holder for sale in execution of the decree, and in spite of the defendants objections, sale was ordered, the decree having been construed as allowing a sale. 2. The orders so construing the decree estop the respondent from raising any contention inconsistent with those orders at has been repeatedly laid down. 3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the application be replaced on the file and proceeded with in accordance with law. The respondent will pay the appellants costs in this Court.