Hopkins v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Citation | Hopkins v. Roberts, 54 Md. 312 (Md. 1880) |
| Parties | JOHN P. HOPKINS v. JOSEPH K. ROBERTS, JR., and RICHARD WOOTTON, Trustees. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, in Equity.
This appeal was taken from an order of the Court(MAGRUDER, J.,) below, finally ratifying and confirming a sale to John P Hopkins, reported by the trustees, Roberts and Wootton, and requiring the said Hopkins to pay or bring into Court the sum of $1308.75, being the amount of the purchase money, after crediting the sum of $30, admitted by the trustees to have been paid to the trustee Wootton, or show cause to the contrary, &c.The case is stated in the opinion of this Court.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.
C C. Magruder, Jr., Frank H. Stockett and C. C Magruder, for the appellant.
Jos. K. Roberts, Jr., for the appellees.
The question presented by this appeal is, whether a sale reported by the appellees, as trustees, to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, in the matter of the real estate of Anne Elizabeth Wootton, deceased, should be ratified?The deceased, by her last will and testament, dated the twentieth of November, 1866, duly executed to pass real estate and admitted to probate by the Orphans' Court of said county, devised and directed, that when certain mortgage debts therein mentioned should become due, if they should become due during the life of her mother, Daniel Clarke, as trustee, and her brother, Richard Wootton, should, in their discretion, have power to sell and convey so much of the real estate of which the testatrix died seized and possessed, as might be necessary to pay the said mortgage debts, or to raise by mortgage upon the said real estate executed by them jointly, such sum as should be necessary to discharge the mortgage debts.Messrs. Clarke and Wootton, by virtue and in pursuance of this power, reported to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, on the thirteenth of January, 1874, a sale of two hundred and eight and a quarter acres of land to John P. Hopkins, the appellant, for $5606.95, which sale was finally ratified and confirmed.
Mr. Clarke having died in the interim, on the twelfth of April, 1878, Messrs. Wootton and Roberts filed their report in the said case, setting forth the preceding matters and sale, and further reported:
On this report, an order of ratification " nisi" was passed.
The appellant filed an answer to the petition and report of the appellees, and replying to that portion, in regard to the alleged second sale, denied that he ever afterwards purchased another portion of said real estate of the late Daniel Clarke and said Richard...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Soehnlein v. Pumphrey
... ... alleged in the bill. Semmes v. Worthington, 38 Md ... 298, 327; Reese v. Reese, 42 Md. 554; Hopkins v ... Roberts, 54 Md. 312. It is our opinion (1) that the ... alleged agreement possesses the elements necessary to entitle ... complainants to ... ...
-
Boehm v. Boehm
... ... of itself take the parol contract out of the Statute ... Miller's Equity Procedure, sec. 709; Hopkins v ... Roberts, 54 Md. 312; Gorsuch [182 Md. 265] ... v. Kollock, 139 Md. 462, 115 A. 779. When possession ... is assumed as an act of part ... ...
-
Caplan v. Buckner
...paid a part of the purchase price. Duvall v. Myers, 2 Md. Ch. 401; Geiger v. Green, 4 Gill, 472; Gelston v. Sigmund, 27 Md. 334; Hopkins v. Roberts, 54 Md. 312; Spear Orendorf, 26 Md. 37; Goldman v. Britton, 90 Md. 259, 44 A. 1029; Miller's Eq. Proc. §§ 679-711; 36 Cyc. 654. It is undoubted......
-
Gorter v. Gale
... ... must be affirmed. Waters v. Howard, 8 Gill, 262; ... Smith v. Crandall, 20 Md. 482; Hopkins v ... Roberts, 54 Md. 312; Stodderd v. Tuck, 5 Md ... ...