Hughes v. Riggs

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court: This is an appeal from an order of a Court of Equity ratifying a sale made under its decree. Mrs. Mary T. Riggs was the holder of a mortgage on certain real and leasehold estate in the city of Baltimore which belonged to Mrs. Mary R. Hughes. The property was sold by a trustee to the mortgagee for seven thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, and exceptions were filed to the ratification of the sale. It was alleged that the property, which consisted of three different lots, should have been advertised and sold in separate parcels ; secondly, that it was sold for an inadequate price; thirdly, that one H. Edgar Johnson held the legal title to the property under certain powers of attorney made for the purpose of securing him certain advances, and that a bill in equity had been filed against him by the mortgagor, praying that said powers of attorney might be annulled and a trustee appointed to take charge of the property; and fourthly, that H. Edgar Johnson ought to have been made a party to the proceedings.

The property was advertised in the usual way according to the terms of the decree, and was described in such manner as fully and clearly to identify it. It consisted of two leasehold lots on the north side of West Franklin street, known respectively as No. 218 and No. 220, and of a small lot in fee-simple in the rear of No. 218 and fronting twenty feet on Tyson street. The leasehold lots fronted about eighteen feet on Franklin street and had a depth of about forty-five feet. The back building of No. 218 covered a portion of the fee-simple lot on Tyson street.

Nos. 218 and 220 were each improved by a four-story building, ⁵⁰⁴ and had been rented together, and connecting doors had been cut between them ; it is probable from the evidence that these doors were afterwards closed. There is a small yard in the rear of No. 220 about eight feet by fifteen. It was the duty of the trustee to exercise a sound judgment and discretion in determining whether the lots should be sold separately or together. The testimony on this point is conflicting.

One witness testified that he wished to purchase one house, but that he would not bid on both. Another person present, after examining the premises with the auctioneer, coincided in opinion with him that they ought to be offered as an entirety, and he became afterwards the highest bidder except the purchaser. Two witnesses testify that the property ought to have been offered in separate parcels, and three testify that it was more judicious to sell it all together. It may easily be seen that No. 218 could not be sold separately from the fee-simple lot in the rear without considerable disadvantage; inasmuch as its back building covers a portion of this rear lot and has its only outlet to the street through it.

If No. 220 should be separated from the rest of the property .the only communication to its