Shaw v. Smith

Page, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There are two appeals in this record. One from the order of the Court below dismissing exceptions to the sale made and reported by the assignee of the mortgage; and the other from an order allowing the firm of Gibson & Smith the sum of $ ioo as a fee for professional services in defending these exceptions. The .sale was made under a power contained in the mortgage set out in the record made by Edelin and wife to the Boys’ Home Society of Baltimore to secure an indebtedness of $ i ,000 and interest binding upon certain real property in Prince George’s County.

Default in the payment of interest having occurred, and the mortgage having been assigned to plaintiff Shaw, the property was sold to one Parkhurst. Subsequently Alfred G. Shaw who claimed to hold an interest in the property, filed exceptions to the ratification of the sale, and these having been overruled by the Court and the sale finally ratified, this appeal was taken. The grounds upon which these exceptions were based, may be briefly stated as follows: 1st- Alleged gross inadequacy of price. 2nd. Because it was improperly advertised in a newspaper which had no circulation in the locality where the property is located. 3rd.

Because it was offered on a day at Marlboro Court House when purchasers would be likely t-o be kept away from the sale on “market day.” 4th. Because Mr. Parkhurst who became the purchaser was at the time of the purchase an attorney of record for the assignee of the mortgage. 5th. Because the assignment of the mortgage was illegal and the assignee acquired no legal title. ⁵²⁵ As to the first point, it is no doubt well settled, that mere inadequacy'of price, of itself, is not sufficient to set aside a sale made by a trustee, unless it is so gross as to indicate misconduct or fraud on his part or there is some just cause which the purchaser may be responsible for which affords reasonable ground for supposing that the sale was improperly made. Conroy v. Carroll, 82 Md. 127 .

This property was sold to Mr. Parkhurst, who became the purchaser in the interest of the mortgagees. Of the objection, that he was at the time of the sale the “Attorney of record for the assignee of the mortgage,” it is sufficient to remark that whether true in point of fact or not, there is no evidence to support the averment. Mr. Parkhurst testifies that he became the purchaser “for himself subject to the ratification of the Court.” There is nothing that appears from which he can be regarded as having acted unfairly or without proper authority; or whether he was in fact proceeding merely as a solicitor to enforce the interest of his client or for his own purposes. Nor does the price offered by him furnish any evidence of such inadequacy as can indicate that there was unfairness in the making of the sale.

As to the value of the property, the evidence is not satisfactory. One Henry J. Kintz undertakes to give his ideas, to the effect that “if aman wanted a good farm, it is worth about $3,500 and the reason he assigns for this, is that the property is ‘pecu''ai'ly located,’ ” this “land would he thinks make one of the finest corn crops going;” it is so well and settled by the “whole of the north',' and has the finest water on it;” and for a further reason adds that “it has a cave on it nobody knows how deep it is and often dogs go in it and stay for days.” Subsequently this same witness states that he made an offer to take the property “subject to the mortgages” and he says he understood them to be $1,000 and $2,000. Also offered $200 in cash and $3,000 in stock of National Lumber Company at par; but we are not informed what a fair valuation of this stock per share may be. We do not deem it