Conroy v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 11 December 1895
• Parties: CONROY v. CARROLL ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

33 A. 423

82 Md. 127

CONROY v. CARROLL ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 11, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county, in equity.

Creditors' bill by Frank J. Dieudonne against Helen M. Carroll and others. From an order setting aside a sale by trustees, the purchaser, Thomas F. Conroy, appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRISCOE, BRYAN, BOYD, McSHERRY and FOWLER, JJ.

H. W Talbott and Chas. W. Prettyman, for appellant.

Thomas Anderson and W. Veirs Bouic, Jr., for appellees.

FOWLER J.

By authority of a decree of the circuit court for Montgomery county, the trustees therein named sold a part of the real estate of the late Samuel Sprigg Carroll. Exceptions were filed to the ratification of this sale, upon the grounds--First, that the sale was not advertised according to the requirements of the decree; second, that the price obtained was grossly inadequate; and, thirdly, that the trustees had failed to file the bond required by the decree. The learned judge below overruled the second and third exceptions, sustained the first, and passed an order setting the sale aside. From this order, the purchaser, Thomas F Conroy, has appealed.

The trustees were required by the decree to give "at least three weeks' previous notice by advertisement inserted in some newspaper printed, and published in Montgomery county and such other notice as they should think proper, of the time, place, manner, and terms of sale." This requirement, it is conceded, was not complied with, for the sale which was reported as having been made to the appellant never was advertised, except by a short notice published in the Washington Star five days before the sale. The appellant purchased the property for $7,500, and a few days thereafter a bona fide cash offer of $9,000 was made to the trustees who hold a certified check for that amount as evidence that said offer is a continuing one. Under these circumstances, we are all of opinion that the sale should be set aside. We do not, however, so hold because of any gross inadequacy of price (the evidence not justifying such a conclusion), but because the sale, as reported, was not advertised as directed by the decree, coupled with the fact, which is clearly established by the proof, that the property was purchased by the appellant for much less than its real value. While it is well settled that the right of purchasers at trustees' sales must be...