Wilson v. Farquharson

Le Grand, C. J., delivered the opinion of this court. This is an appeal from the court of chancery. It appéars from the record that William S. Harper, by his last will, manumitted his negroes, and devised to William Rea certain real estate in trust for their benefit. In particular he devised certain real estate to the said Rea, in trust to be rented out, and the issues and profits thereof to be paid over to Henry Robinson, one of his negroes, “annually, or his order, attested by some justice of the peace.” Rea assumed the trust and discharged the functions thereof for some time, when, having declined to’ act any longer, the appellee, Farquharson, was, by order of the court of chancery, substituted in his place.

On the 6th May 1850, a bill was filed on the part of some of the devisees against the others and the trustee, representing that the real estate so devised in trust for their benefit was deteriorating in value, and praying a sale as greatly to the interest and advantage of all parties concerned. Upon the coming in of the answers and proof a sale was decreed, which’ ¹³⁸ was made and finally ratified on the 5th November 1851. After the order of ratification nisi, the appellant, by his petition filed on the 30th July 1851, stated that he was one of the purchasers, and claimed, by virtue of a deed and assignment from Henry Robinson, one of the devisees under the will, the proportion of the proceeds of the sale-to which Robinson was entitled. The deed is dated the 25th June 1850, and purports for the consideration of $750, to convey to the appellant all the interest of the grantor in the real estate of Harper devised under the will.

The appellant asked that the proportion of the proceeds of the sale to which he claimed to be entitled, by virtue of the transfer from Robinson to him,, might be credited to him and deducted from his purchase.. Robinson, by his answer, admitted the allegations of the petition and consented to its prayer. Farquharson, however, filed his petition, in. w'hich he declares if the sale set up in-the petition of-the appellant was made, that the consideration-was grossly inadequate, and the deed extorted from Robinson by fraudulent -practices, and prayed that the appellant might answer his petition, and the deed be set aside, and the proceeds of sale paid to the petitioner as trustee, to be invested and applied to the use of the parties. This petition wasanswmred by the appellant, and, in his answrnr, He denies all fraud, &c..

The chancellor dismissed the petition of the appellant, and retained that of Farquharson for further order. We concur in opinion with the chancellor, there is no evidence to show that the appellant practiced any fraud upon Henry Robinson. The instrument of assignment appears to have been executed with all due formality, and the assignor professes a willingness to abide by it, as is fully evidenced by his answer. This being so, the only two questions remaining tobe considered are: — 1st.

Is there evidence of such gross-inadequacy of price as to shock the conscience; and 2nd. Had Robinson the power to make the disposition which he did. 1st. As to the inadequacy of Price. The interest of Robinson is estimated to amount to about $2800.

The price agreed to be paid by the appellant is $750. There is certainly- ¹³⁹ great disparity in the sums, but this circumstance alone will not be sufficient to set aside the deed. The peculiar nature of the interests which were devised to the negroes of Harper, and the state of our law in regard to that class of our population, especially since the passage of the act of 1831, which prohibits manumitted slaves from remaining in Maryland, may very well have suggested doubts in the minds of persons as to the value of the rights of