Anderson v. Cecil

• Citation: 38 A. 1074,86 Md. 490
• Parties: ANDERSON et al. v. CECIL.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1897
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

38 A. 1074

86 Md. 490

ANDERSON et al. v. CECIL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 2, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Queen Anne county.

Bill by Preston R. Anderson and others against William H. Cecil. From a decree for defendant, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

H. H Barroll, for appellants. Edwin H. Brown, for appellee.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, RUSSUM, FOWLER ROBERTS, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

PAGE J.

The complainants, in their bill, allege that by proceedings "in chancery cause entitled 'Preston R. Anderson et al. vs. Wm. J. Anderson et al.,' being No. 732 chancery," referred to and prayed to be taken as a part of their bill, the trustees, John B. and E. H. Brown, sold unto the appellee certain real estate; that the sale was reported to and ratified by the court, but that a large part of the purchase money is still unpaid; that on the petition of the trustees the court ordered a resale at the risk of the purchaser, but they have never resold the property; that the appellee, who is insolvent, has been permitted to continue in possession up to the present time; that the real estate sold is an inadequate security for the purchaser's debt; and that of the sureties for the appellee "for his compliance with the terms of sale, William B. Shawn is dead and the complainant believes and is informed he is insolvent." The appellants further charge "that on said farm, at the present, there are valuable crops" of wheat and corn, "which, if secured, and applied to the payment of" the complainants' claim, would "tend to secure" the complainants in a small measure at least; and that, if they be not so applied, the complainant will be unable to secure anything in excess of the market value of the land; and that the only way in which this can be done is by the appointment of a receiver, and the granting of an injunction to restrain the appellee and his agents and servants from interfering with the receiver. The prayer of the bill is for a receiver and injunction and general relief. Appended to the bill, there is an affidavit of one of the complainants, to the effect that the matters set forth in the bill are true "to the best of his knowledge and belief." It does not appear there were any exhibits filed with the bill. There is set out in the record what purports to be a copy of a part of the proceedings in the chancery case No. 732, but there is nothing to show it was filed with the bill as an exhibit, or was before the court when the decree appealed from was passed. The court refused to appoint a receiver, and dismissed the bill, and this action forms the subject of this appeal.

It must be noted that in the record before us the nature and character of the complainants' interest is nowhere stated. In the last paragraph of the bill it is alleged that, unless the crops are applied to the payment of the purchase money due to the trustees, there will be no other way to secure anything towards payment of the large sum due to the complainants. But on what account, or from whom, the indebtedness is due, can only be conjectured. Even if the proceedings in No. 732, as set forth in the record, be considered, the court is left no wiser than it was before. It is true, some statements were made by the counsel for the appellants, tending to explain the interest of the...