Carroll v. Hutton

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dated the 4th of November, 1899, ratifying and confirming the sale of a tract of land, known as the “ Caves,” a part of “ Lion’s Den,” and “ Gist’s Search,” and located near Green Spring and Worthington Valleys, in Baltimore County, containing in or about 1,815 acres. The sale is reported by Gen. Ferdinand C. Latrobe, attorney named in a mortgage, from John N. Carroll and wife to Celeste M. W. Hutton, and the report states that the sale ³⁸⁰ was made at public auction to Mrs. Hutton, the mortgagee, for the sum of $32.000.

On a former appeal, reported in 88 Md. 677 , an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, dated the 22nd day of June, 1898, ratifying a sale of this property to Mrs. Hutton for the sum of $29,000 was reversed by this Court and a resale ordered upon the ground “ that the attorney had not exercised proper diligence in offering the property for sale, in the selection of methods of advertisement, and of making the sale.” It also appears that a sale of the same property had been previously made on the 6th of July, 1897, to Mrs. Hutton at public sale for the sum of $20,000, and on exceptions the sale was set aside by the lower Court and a resale directed, because of inadequacy of price and because the whole tract was sold in its entirety and not offered by farms as it had been used and occupied. The ratification of the sale in the case at bar is objected to for a number of reasons, but those mainly relied upon by the appellant are inadequacy of price, insufficiency of the notice, and mode of sale, an improper division of the land into farm tracts, and the injudicious management of the sale by the attorney for the mortgagee. We have carefully examined the testimony in the record and we all agree that it does not sustain the objections made by the appellants and contained in their exceptions to the sale. There is no legal principle better settled than that inadequacy of price standing by itself will not invalidate a sale, unless so gross as to indicate bad faith or a want of reasonable judgment and discretion in the mortgagee.

A judicial sale, bona fide made, will not be set aside because of difference of opinion among witnesses as to the value of the property, unless the price reported is so grossly inadequate as to indicate misconduct on the pai't of the trustee and purchaser. It does not appear from the evidence in this case that the alleged inadequacy of price was the result of any mismanagement or want of skill on the paxt of the attorney or other ³⁸¹ person connected with the sale. The property was not only advertised according to the terms prescribed by the mortgage, but was first offered at public sale in twelve (12) separate farms into which it had been divided by the attorney, with the assistance of Mr. Twamley, a competent and experienced surveyor of Baltimore City. The mortgagee was the only bidder at the sale and was compelled to purchase the property in its entirety, although she offered to release all rights to the mortgaged property if the debt, interest and costs due thereon was satisfied.

It also appears that every opportunity was afforded the appellant to relieve the property from the mortgage lien. The property at the first sale was offered and sold in its entirety and was sold to the mortgagee, she being the highest bidder. The second sale was advertised to take place at the Court house door, Towson, and was first offered for sale in five separate farm tracts, as follows : farm A, 420 acres ; farm B, 592 acres ; farm C,