Stewart v. Devries

Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Christian Devries, of S., was appointed trustee to sell certain real estate in a proceeding in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, between the heirs of Wm. Devries, deceased. In August, 1887, he reported a sale of a lot of ground situated in Baltimore City, to Laura Lee Capron, for the sum of $11,666.66, which was duly confirmed.

In August, 1892, he filed a petition alleging that the purchaser had not complied with the terms of the sale, and asking for authority to resell the property at her risk and expense, unless the amounts alleged to be due be paid. The Court having passed an order nisi, Mrs. Capron answered the petition, assigning as a reason for her non-compliance with the terms of the sale, that the trustee was unable to give title to the whole lot, as a part of it belonged to the estate of one John Rutter. Considerable testimony was taken, and the Court finally ordered a resale of the property at the expense and risk of Mrs. Capron. On the 12th of June, 1894, the trustee reported the sale of that lot to the appellant for the sum of $11,100.00, who filed exceptions to the’ ratification of the sale, on the ground that the trustee could not give a good and merchantable title on account of the interest of the Rutter estate.

Testimony was taken, and the case submitted to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, which resulted in an order of that Court overruling the exceptions of the appellant and ratifying the sale. From that order this appeal was taken. It is well settled in this State that a trustee appointed by a Court of Equity is the agent of the Court; and hence, if the question be raised in due time, the Court will see that no undue advantage is taken of the purchaser, and he will not be compelled to comply with the terms of a sale if it would be inequitable for him to do so, especially if there has been any misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise, by the trustee. That rule is necessary for the purposes of justice, as well as to encourage bidding at trustee’s sales.

But when a purchase is made by one who is cognizant of ⁵²⁷ all the essential facts necessary to enable him to understand what the trustee is selling, the Court should be equally zealous in protecting the rights of those interested in the proceeds of the sale of the property, and in not permitting its agent, the trustee, to be trifled with. There is nothing in this record that suggests any very serious question as to the title to this lot. It is conceded that there is no difficulty as to the front part of the lot, but it is contended that there is a cloud on the title to the rear portion of it by reason of the possible interest in it vested in the estate of John Rutter. William Devries purchased the whole lot in 1852, and it seems to have been held by him and his heirs, and those under whom they claim, since 1828.

The learned Judge below based his opinion on these and other facts disclosed in the case, and reached the conclusion that the title of the Devries estate is good and merchantable for the whole lot. Without meaning to be understood as differing from him, we express no opinion on that question, because under the view we take of the case it is unnecessary. The evidence shows conclusively that the appellant knew of the alleged defect in the title before he bid on the property. In his letter to the attorney representing the trustee, he wrote : “If you are going to argue the Devries case on the point that I am bound to take the title, whether it is good or not,