McLane v. McLane

¹⁸⁷ Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A sale was made at public auction by Messrs. Rohrback and Weinberg, trustees appointed by the Circuit Court for Frederick County, to Mrs. Georgianna S. McLane, of the properties described in these proceedings as parcel (1) and parcel (2), situated on the north side of West Patrick Street, in Frederick, Maryland, but, by reason of information received after the sale, Mr. Weinberg declined to unite in tho report of sale, and filed objections thereto. The other trustee, Mr. Rohrback, reported the sale to that purchaser, and Robert C. McLane and others also filed objections to the ratification, in addition to those filed by Mr. Weinberg.

It is not contended that the trustees, or either of them, or the auctioneer, did, or left undone, anything which would justify setting the sale aside, but it is claimed that Mrs. McLane, tho purchaser of the two parcels, improperly induced others not to bid on them, and thereby acquired them for such prices and under such circumstances as called upon the court to set the sale aside. Mrs. McLane is the widow of Harry O. McLane, deceased, and the mother of Helen Stull McLane, who survived her father and afterwards died intestate. By a decree of that court it was determined that the real estate of Harry O. McLane, who also died intestate, descended to his only child, Helen Stull McLane, subject to tho dower right of her mother, and also subject to the dower right of her grandmother, Margaret «I. McLane, who died in June, 1921. After the death of Helen Stull McLane, it was determined by the court that her interest in these properties had, under the statute of descents in Maryland in force at the time of her death, vested in Robert C. McLane and other descendants of her paternal great grandfather, subject to the dower of Georgianna S. McLane, her mother.

Mrs. McLane was greatly disappointed, and it may be admitted, naturally so, at the decree of the court so holding, as she had lived in the property for a number of years and thought it vested in her. At a sale made by the trustees under the decree of the court, ¹⁸⁸ she went to Mr. Theodore H. Alexander’, who had gone to the court house where the property was to be offered at public auction, to bid on these two properties, which were sold together. According to his testimony, this occurred: He was asked why he did not bid at the sale and replied: “Well, I came up the morning of the sale and sat down in front of Judge Johnson’s office, about half an hour before the sale started. I didn’t know then it was Mrs. McLane.

I had only seen her once at her place — she came over to me and says ‘Is your name Alexander?’ I said ‘It is.’ ‘You buy houses.’ I said ‘I have been.’ She said ‘Are you interested in this place?’ I said ‘I am.’ She said ‘This is my home, I have lived there a long time. I would like to ask you not to bid against me.’ I didn’t say anything. She said, ‘The lawyers in this case — the lawyers are trying to rob me out of my home. In some cases the law punishes robbers, but in this ease it seems as though it protects them.’ I said ‘If you look at it that way you won’t be bothered by me,’ so that was the end of the conversation between Mrs. McLane and myself.” He said that she and Mr. Derr approached him between an hour and a half hour before the sale, and that if she had not made that statement to him he would have bid on the property; that he would have offered between $1500 and $1600, and that with the assistance of his wife he was able to buy the property at that time and pay for it according to the terms of the sale; that he had spoken to his wife about buying it, and had looked over the property about a week before the sale and he owned a property across the street from it.

Harry Nixdorff said he had made six or eight bids — ’his last one being about $850 or $900. In answer to what stopped him from bidding and what took place between him and Mrs. McLane, he said: “A lady came over to me and said, ‘Ho you know the widow is being robbed?’ ‘No,’ I said, ‘If that is the condition I’ll stop bidding.’ ” He said ¹⁸⁹ lie was able to pay for the property; that he did not know the lady, but there is in his evidence the following: “Q. Did you later learn it was Mr. D'err’s wife? A. T understood so. Q. Mr. Daniel Derr sitting here?

A. Yes, he was the gentleman at the sale. Q. After she said to you, ‘Do yo-u know the widow is being robbed,’ you said, ‘If that is the case I’ll stop.’ Then you did stop. A. I did. Q.

(By the Court) : Is that all she said ? A. I think that is all — 'just a few words — more, maybe. She came over and thanked us after that. Q. Which lady ?

Mrs. Derr ? A. I think the lady who told me to stop. Q. You don’t know the property now ? A. Yes; I have been over and looked over it two days after the sale.

I thought it was very reasonable for $2,000 without the dower interest. Q. With the dower removed, with the dower interest. Q. With the dower removed, with the dower interest? A. $1,500 would be a fair price.

Q. (By Mr. Weinberg) : You knew it was being sold subject to the dower interest ? A. Yes.” In his cross-examination this appears; “Q. (By the Court) : Did you say you wouldn’t want the property now ?

A. I wouldn’t want it, not with the dower. I would give $2,000 with the dower removed. Q. Would you be a bidder on it under the same conditions? A. Not unless the dower was removed.

Q. (By Mr. Weinberg) : You would have bid that day if this lady had not said the widow'is being robbed ? A. Yes, I would have. Q.

(By the Court) : Why then and not now ? A. I don’t think I want to own any property with a lady partner. She would be entitled to one-third of the property, Q. That same condition existed at the time of the sale? A. I didn’t look at it that way the day of the sale.

Q. You just bid on it because Mr. Eaubel said it was going very cheap ? A. Yes. Q. (By Mr. Kohrback) : You did say you, wouldn’t want a property with a dower tied up in it?

A. I did say that, I think. Q. (By Mr. Weinberg) : If the lady had not interfered you would have bid $1,500? A. Oh, I would have; yes.” ¹⁹⁰ There was a Florence May Derr who was a defendant in the case in which the decree for the sale was made, and although she was there mentioned as a widow, we understand that she was the wife of Daniel D'err.

Mr. Weinberg testified that he did not know until the afternoon after the sale of the action of Mrs. McLane, when some one told him what- had occurred between Mrs. Derr and Mr. Nixdorff, and that night he learned what had taken place between Mrs. McLane and Mr. Alexander; that he saw a son of Mrs. Derr talking to Mr. Ray at the time of the sale, but he did not then know what he said; that after the sale he congratulated Mrs. McLane and told Mr. Derr that he was g-lad she had the property, but that was before he heard of what had been done; that he had an offer since the sale from “H. A. Derr”’ (there is some confusion about the first name), the husband of Mrs. Florence May Derr, of $2,000 for the property, but he notified him the day before he (Weinberg) was testifying that he had changed his mind; that he had a bona fide offer of $1,500, accompanied by a certified check for $500, from John N. Lawler of Washington, whom he did not know personally. There is in the record an offer dated the 26th of August, 1922, signed by John N. Lawler, but that is for $2,000, subject to the widow’s dower, and with that there is a deposit of a certified check of $500. Mr. Weinberg testified that he had not considered the price at which the property was sold to Mrs. McLane a fair one, but that he had felt, as the auctioneer did, that it was not fair to keep him (the auctioneer) there two' or three hours when nobody was there to bid against Mrs. McLane. He said that none of his clients was present at the sale.

Elmer L. Ray said he attended the sale, and his last bid was either $860 or $840'. He was asked to tell the court what occurred after his last bid and who came to him. Fie replied he did not know the gentleman, and this appears in his evidence : “Q. (By the Court) : Have you learned the name of the gentleman?

A. No, sir, I didn’t. He came to me; I was standing at the side of the door, and said ‘Do you know how ¹⁹¹ you are buying tliis property ?’ I said, 'Like any other property, I suppose.’ He said, 'No you ain’t.’ I