Lewis v. Beale

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On December 6th, 1921, Mary Dodge Lewis 'became indebted to the American Security & Trust Company in the sum of $8,500, and she and her husband, II. Batané Lewis, secured the debt by executing a deed to William L. Beale and George W. Brown conveying a parcel of land, containing 1.121 acres of land, situated in Montgomery County, upon certain trusts and terms and conditions therein set forth. Among these provisions was one for a sale of the premises by the trustees upon default- being1 made in the payment of the principal and interest of the debt when duo.

The trustees made sale under this power and filed their report, and thereafter the debtor and her husband excepted to the ratification of the sale because of an alleged (1) gross inadequacy of price and (2) improper and insufficient advertisement of the sale. The chancellor heard the testimony, overruled the ex ²⁰ ceptions, and finally ratified and confirmed the sale by a decree from which this appeal is taken. 1. The power conferred upon the trustees was to ^ell the land and premises at public auction, upon such terms and conditions, in such parcels', at such time and place, and after such previous public advertisement, as the trustees should deem advantageous and proper. In. the exercise of their discretion under this power, the trustees determined the terms and conditions, time, and place and manner of sale, and g’ave notice thereof by an advertisement inserted in “The Montgomery Press,” a newspaper published in Montgomery County, for more than three weeks prior to the day of sale; and by sending; handbills to such persons as the trustees believed might be interested in the sale.

The manner and length of time of the notice by publication, in the local newspaper where the land is located, were sufficient to gratify the requirements of the statute. Code, art. 66, see. 8; Shaw v. Smith, 107 Md. 523 , 69 A. 116 ; Evans Marble Company v. Abrams, 131 Md. 204 , 101 A. 964 ; Edgecombe Park Co. v. Finney, 121 Md. 320 , 88 A. 143 . Hor were the contents of the advertisement inadequate. The ownership', street and number, and area, are given, and a precise reference is made hr the deed of trust from the debtor and her husband to the trustees, with its date and place of record, for a complete description of the land.

In addition, the approximate frontage of the premises on the Georgetown Turnpike, and its depth, are stated in feet, an adjacent landowner is named, as are the nearly opposite premises of the Bank of B'ethesda, the Masonic Hall & Library Association, and Dr. Benjamin O. Perry. The improvements are stated to be a comfortable and attractive bungalow of eight rooms and a bath, and a garage to hold two¡ automobiles. The advertisement further points out that the sale is of a valuable, high-class residence, located in one of the best sections of the Metropolitan District of Montgomery County and within two miles of the line of the District of Columbia. The exceptants argue that attention should have been called by the advertisement to the circumstance that the- residence ²¹ is within that section of the Metropolitan District which is classified as “first commercial zone.” The testimony shows that only that part of the lot which fronts on the highway for about 94 feet and to the depth of 150 feet is within the section classified as commercial, and therefore over three-fourths of the lot is within the residential zone.

There is, also', a conflict of opinion whether a nominal commercial classification, which does not correspond with the real situation, has any appreciable effect on the present market value of a property whose improvement and actual use properly place it in a residential classification. The advertisement plainly and accurately located the premises, and described the nature of its improvements and of the neighboring property, so that any prospective purchaser would have -been informed, or put in possession of the facts from which the information could have been readily obtained, how the property was zoned by the Metropolitan District of Montgomery 'County, and what effect that circumstance would have upon its value. The witnesses who testified to the value of the property differ widely in their estimates. They range from $20,000 to $30,000, on the part of the exceptants, and from $10,000 to $14,000 in behalf of the trustees.

The difficulty in relying on testimony of this nature is that there is usually no adequate standard with which to measure the value of a particular piece of property, in a neighborhood where transactions in land are few and unrelated. A specific portion of land is seldom so similar in area, location, adaptability, improvement, use, and physical condition as to constitute a unit of a comparable class; and the bias, knowledge, experience, and capacity of a witness who may testify with respect to- the value of land are so inconstant, -yet play so large a part ip reaching a conclusion which, if correct, must accord due weight to such important, although variable factors as financial conditions, the movement of population, and the subsisting supply and demand, that an opinion on the value at a given time of a particular portion of land, especially if situated in a neighborhood of infrequent sales, is frequently of no ²² great weight. The