121 F.2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1941), 7703, Mandley v. Backer

Docket Nº:7703.
Citation:121 F.2d 875
Party Name:MANDLEY v. BACKER et al.
Case Date:April 21, 1941
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 875

121 F.2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1941)

MANDLEY

v.

BACKER et al.

No. 7703.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

April 21, 1941

Argued March 11, 1941.

William A. Gallagher and Ellsworth L. McIntosh, Jr., both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Albert Brick of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and VINSON, Associate Justices.

GRONER, C. J.

Appellant was plaintiff in the court below. He is a carpenter by trade. His complaint alleges that in March, 1937, he owned a home in or near Hyattsville, Maryland, of the value of about $3,000; that he owed Hyattsville Building Association $400 secured by deed of trust on his property and was then in arrears in his installment payments; to avoid threatened foreclosure he engaged the services of appellees Gladman and Backer, residents of the District of Columbia, as his agents to handle negotiations with the Association; Gladman and Backer orally agreed they would take whatever

Page 876

steps might be necessary to save the property for him and would if it became necessary make a temporary advance of funds for this purpose, in which case they would take a lien upon the property or title to the property for the purpose of securing the advance, and in either event would hold the same in trust for appellant during such reasonable time as should be necessary to enable him to obtain funds to repay them. On this basis, appellant employed them and wholly relied upon them to carry out their undertaking, but instead of acting as they had agreed, they permitted the property to be sold and bought in by the Association and thereafter redeemed it at largely increased cost, taking title in the name of Backer, but at all times representing to appellant that they were acting for him and in his behalf. Thereafter they dispossessed him and rented the property to another person for approximately $35 per month and now deny the fact of their agency or that they are in any way accountable for their conduct. Appellant says that he has been at all times ready, willing, and able to compensate appellees for any just and proper expenditures made in his behalf, and asks for a decree ascertaining and declaring appellant's interest in the property and requiring appellees to execute such conveyances as should be necessary to effectuate the equities and rights of the parties.

There was a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP