Maryland case law › Hopper v. Williams

Hopper v. Williams

75 Md. 191 (1892) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DismissedFowler✓ Good law
HoldingIn a trustees' sale of the real estate of the late John A.

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By a decree for the Circuit Court for Harford County, Stevenson A. Williams and William M. Marine were appointed trustees to sell the real estate of the late John A. Hopper. This decree was in the usual form, and provided, among other things, that the credit payments should be secured by the notes or bonds of the purchaser, with surety or sureties to be approved by the trustees. At the trustees’ sale the appellant, Harrison A. Hopper, became the purchaser of the whole of the said real estate for $13,775, but he failed to furnish security for the payment of the purchase money, as required by the trustees.

After some delay he asked a further extension of time for giving security, which both of the trustees decided to grant. 193 The appellant having eventually failed to comply with the terms of his contract, one of the trustees, Mr. Williams, reported that fact to the Court for its action. The other trustee, Mr. Marine, also reported the sale, and further stated in his report that the purchaser had not furnished the security required, because he is or claims to he the owner of five-sixths of the proceeds of sale, either by deeds of conveyance from or claims against the other heirs-at-law; and suggested to the Coiirt that the purchaser should not be required to give security for more than one-sixth of the purchase money or proceeds of sale. The claim of the purchaser thus advanced by one of the trustees was denied by the other, and a mortgage for $5,000, covering all the purchaser’s interest in said real estate, was filed among the proceedings, and by order of the Court the mortgagees were made parties, and the auditor was directed to allow the mortgage debt and interest out of the purchaser’s share of the proceeds of sale. The trustees having been unable to agree as to the security to be given by the appellant as purchaser, the matters in question between them were submitted to the Court upon their respective reports, and the answer of the

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