Doyle v. Whitridge

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City overruling an exception to the sale of a ground rent made at public auction by the appellee as executor. The grounds of the exception are, first, a misdescription of the property in the advertisement, and second, misleading and untrue statements made by the auctioneer at the time of the sale. The published advertisement described the ground rent as follows: “$250 on the Calverton Stockyards.

The lot has a front of 344 feet on West Fayette street near Calverton road, with an irregular depth- of 155 feet to a 20-foot alley, on which it runs 444 ft. 7 in.” It is not contended, nor is there any proof in the record, that the particular description was not correct as stated; and it also appears there was a correct plat of the lot in the possession of the auctioneer at the time of the sale for the examination of all who for any reason were interested in the sale. The alleged misdescription is that it was stated in the advertisement that the “ground rent” was “on the Calverton stockyards;” whereas in point of fact the ground never belonged to the Calverton Stockyards. The alleged misrepresentations were made by the auctioneer ⁷¹³ at the sale, before the exceptánt had bid upon the property, and were to the effect that the property was improved by a one-story brick building, occupied by Gray and Judie, a prominent firm of cattle dealers, “who were then owners of the leasehold interest, and who paid the rent and had been paying it for a long time; ” whereas in fact Gray and Judie had removed from the premises more than a year previous, and had sold the leasehold interest which they had owned in said property and had conveyed it by a deed dated ioth June, 1902, to a certain Emma Reid “whose whereabouts and address the purchaser has been unable to ascertain, and whom he believes to be an irresponsible person. ” The petitioner alleges that these misstatements misled him and induced him to buy and now justifies him in refusing to be bound by his offer therefor. The Orphans’ Court dismissed the petition and from its order the petitioner has appealed.

The rule applicable to sales made by a trustee is well settled in this State. Before ratification of sales in equity, all objections to it are open for consideration; and the sale will be set aside if it does not appear to be in all respects fair and proper. Tomlinson v. McKaig, 5 Gill, 256 . “Any misdescription of the estate or of the nature or extent of the property, in a material and substantial point, so far affecting the subject-matter of the contract as that it may be reasonably supposed that, but for such misdescriptions, the contract wmuld not have been made at once avoids the contract and releases the purchaser if he so elect.” Rayner v. Wilson, 43 Md. 444 ; Keating v. Price, 58 Md. 536 . It is immaterial whether such misrepresentations were innocently made or not, if they are so material and substantial that they reasonably may be supposed to have influenced the purchaser.

Gunby v. Sinter, 44 Md. 247—248. The petitioner complains that the advertisement states that the ground rent was “ on the Calverton Stockyard,” whereby the impression was created upon him that “ he was purchasing a ground rent on the Calverton Stockyards, or at least upon certain property covered by these stockyards.” This statement, the appellee ⁷¹⁴ contends, could not have misled' him as to the actual location of the property,