Maryland case law › Benson v. Yellott

Benson v. Yellott

76 Md. 159 (1892) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedFowler, J.✓ Good law
HoldingRoberta T.

Fowler, J., delivered the opinioh of the Court. Mrs. Roberta T. Brooke, a widow, died in 1881 leaving a will duly executed, devising certain real estate in Baltimore County to trustees, “in trust and with authority to sell and convey the same, as soon .as the price or sum of two hundred dollars per acre can be obtained therefor, or as soon thereafter, not exceeding one year, as, in the' judgment of such trustees it shall be deemed expedient; and the proceeds arising from such sale to invest in some safe security." 167 The testatrix directed that the income from such investment should be paid to her brother S. Decatur Spence, during his life, and after his death, said income was to go to certain other persons. On the 3rd of April, 1891, the bill in this case was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by Stephen D. Spence and others against N. Carroll Spence and others for a sale of the land above mentioned. Answers were duly filed by all the, parties in being having any interest whatever in said land; and it appears from the hill, answers, and agreed statement of facts that Mrs. Brooke, the testatrix, died without issue in August 1881; that she left a will duly executed to pass real estate, which was duly probated.

The land in question was rough and unimproved, and by reason of its roughness and isolated position, it was not valuable. For years it had yielded no income. It appears that in 1882 a bill was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, and a decree was passed for the sale of said land, Carroll Spence having been named in said decree as trustee. Having qualified as trustee, Mr. Spence made every effort to sell, hut the best offer he secured was less than twenty-five dollars per acre.

In 1887 he resigned as trustee, having been unable to make a sale. Subsequent to the resignation of the trustee, some of the land was sold for taxes, and other portions were about to be sold for the same purpose, when the bill was filed on the 3rd of April, 1891. It is conceded that, in order to make the property of any value to those entitled to it, a sale is necessary, and for the interest, benefit, and advantage of all the parties interested. There was no prospect of being able to get $200 per acre for the land, when the hill was filed nor for years to come; and upon the bill, answers, and evidence a decree was passed for the sale of the land in question, and to set aside and vacate the hill, proceedings and decree of 1882.

This is a preview of Benson v. Yellott. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.