Duncan v. Hiss

⁶⁰⁶ 'Stookbbxd&e, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue involved in this appeal is one of fact rather than law. The only legal question involved has been repeatedly settled by numerous decisions in this State and elsewhere. The issue of fact is whether the sum of $52,500 was or was not the fair value of the property hereinafter mentioned on the 16th of November, 1921.

The case, as it comes before this Court, is an appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting as a court of equity, in which a private sale was made and reported by trustees, and exceptions to which, filed by Mary J. II. Duncan, were overruled and the sale ratified. The circumstances leading up to the sale were that Mrs. Duncan and Mr. William J. Hiss were tenants in common of about one hundred and eighty-one acres of land, lying for the most part in Baltimore County and a small amount of it lying within the present limits of Baltimore City. There was an indebtedness for which the property was liable amounting in the aggregate to about $30,000.

This was partly in the form of a mortgage, upon which the interest was long overdue, in fact had never been paid since the original execution of the mortgage; about four years’ taxes, and numerous judgments and pending suits which would soon have become judgments and liens upon the land. In this condition the bill was filed in the Circuit Court by William J. Hiss for a sale of the property to satisfy the various outstanding claims and a division of any sum which might be left thereafter between himself and sister. The decree for sale was passed on the 7th day of July, 1921, and by its terms the trastees named in it were authorized and directed to dispose of the property “at either private or public sale in their discretion.” Advertisement was made of a public sale, to be held on August 9th, in a number of newspaper’s, and hand bills announcing the sale were widely distributed among persons likely to be interested in the purchase. When the day named ⁶⁰⁷ in tlie advertisement arrived, the property was offered both, in lots, and as a whole, and the best "bid then made was $39,750.

At this hid the trustees withdrew the property, not deeming the price adequate, but made public announcement at the time that they would be glad to receive bids for a sale at private sale at any time. Looking to the sale at the earliest practicable date, they seem to have made unusual endeavors to secure an offer of a fair value for the property, and not receiving any bid which appealed to them as such, they again advertised the property for sale at public sale to be beld on November 16th, 1921. One or two days before the date set for this second offering of the property, they received an offer at .private sale of $52,-500, or $12,750 in excess of the best bid which had been made at the time of the offering of the property in August. This offer at private sale the trustees accepted, and on the 18th of November reported the same to the court.

That report was signed by all three of the trustees, including Mr. Schnepfe, who had been appointed a. trustee at the instance of Airs. Duncan. Thereafter, and just before the date for the final ratification of the sale, an offer was made for the property by the Canton Company of Baltimore of $57,500. This the trustees declined to consider and the present except tions, while several in number, amount really to but two; first, that the price at which the property was reported as sold, $52,500, was far less than the real value of the,property, or, as stated, that it was grossly inadequate; and second, that the sale was not fairly made.

Taking these up in the inverse order, there is no testimony whatever to warrant the charge that the sale was not fairly made. By the express terms of the decree the trustees were authorized to sell the property at either public or private sale. They had endeavored to sell the property at public sale in August after an unusual