Slingluff v. Dugan

• Decision Date: 15 January 1904
• Parties: SLINGLUFF et al. v. DUGAN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

56 A. 837

98 Md. 518

SLINGLUFF et al. v. DUGAN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 15, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; George M. Sharp, Judge.

Exceptions by Hammond J. Dugan to a trustees' sale made by Fielder C. Slingluff and Frank Slingluff, trustees. From an order setting aside the sale of certain lots, the trustees appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and PAGE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.

Jesse Slingluff, for appellants.

Ferdinand C. Dugan, for appellee.

PEARCE J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Baltimore City setting aside a sale of certain lots made by trustees. The property offered comprised 42 acres of land, through which avenues and streets were laid out, and which was subdivided into lots, as shown on the plot exhibited at the sale. The advertisement described the property as "unimproved building land" situated in the belt annexed to the city, and stated that "each lot fronts on avenues and streets sixty-six feet wide, now condemned and opened, or laid out on the plats, to meet, when opened, the requirements of the city survey as now on file in the office of the commissioners for opening streets." After describing each lot by metes and bounds, the advertisement further stated that: "The Baltimore county tax rate at the time of the annexation was sixty cents on the hundred dollars, and this will continue until the property is compactly built with more than six houses to the block. Not only must the rate remain sixty cents on the one hundred dollars, but the assessment cannot be raised from what it was at the date of the annexation. This property has all city conveniences, such as water, gas, rapid transit railways mail deliveries, churches, schools, etc. City water mains run right through it, and the cars of the United Railways and Electric Company traverse it from end to end, and a five-cent fare to the heart of the city is provided." The exceptant, Hammond J. Dugan, purchased lots 24 and 25 as shown on the subjoined copy of that part of the plot where said lots were located.

RPT.CC.1904016225.00010

(Image Omitted)

After the sale was reported, Hammond J. Dugan excepted to its ratification, first, on the ground that the advertisement was misleading in stating that the lots have city conveniences second, in stating that the assessment could not be increased; and, third, because the size, dimensions, and location of the lots were improperly described and set out in the advertisement. The sale was not made on the premises, but at the salesrooms of the New Real Estate Exchange in the city of Baltimore. The exceptant testified that he attended the sale by request of the auctioneer to bid upon certain lots for members of the Slingluff family, and without any purpose of purchasing for himself, but that, having a copy of the advertisement and a plat of the property, and seeing that lots just south of lot 24 had sold for $400 or $500 more per acre than was offered for lot 24, he thought lots 24 and 25 would be cheap at the price offered, and, so believing, he bought them; that he had never seen the property at that time, but knew the general value of land in that vicinity that after the sale he learned that the advertisement was not correct in stating that the assessment could not be raised until six houses were built on each block, and also discovered that there were neither water nor gas mains laid on any street on which lots 24 and 25 abutted, and that upon making a survey of these lots he found that the depth of lot 24 on Fourth street was only 46 feet 6 inches, instead of 55 feet as advertised, and that the front of lot 25 on Fourth street was only 34 feet 6 inches, instead of 45 feet, as advertised; that this deficiency in the dimensions of these lots made a material difference in their value as building lots, because lot 24 could only be improved by buildings fronting on Windsor avenue and 55 feet was the least depth which would allow such houses as were adapted for that location, so that there would necessarily be a loss of 52 feet on the east end of lot 24, where there vat only have been three houses of 17 feet front, if there had been 55 feet in depth as advertised; and that lot 25 could only be improved by buildings fronting on Fourth street because of its shape, and there could only be two houses, where there would have been three if there had been the advertised depth. He also testified that the streets and avenues were only partially opened, and some were not opened at all, and that water and gas mains would not be laid on these streets until they were put on grade. It appears from the...