| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 516 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
516 HIGH COURT Of CHANCERY. The exceptions, so far as they refer to the manner in which the property was sold, and the amount at which it was struck off to the reported purchaser, are not, in my judgment, sus- tained. Upon examining and carefully analyzing and colla- ting the proof, I find nothing to raise a reasonable doubt either of the perfect fairness of the sale, or that the property sold at an under value. On the contrary, everything appears to have been conducted in such a way as to remove all suspi- cion of management or contrivance to dispose of the estate for less than it was worth; and looking to the evidence, I see nothing to warrant the charge that the price given was inade- quate. But though the party objecting to the gale in this case has, in my opinion, failed in showing anything affecting its bona fides, he has interposed one objection which, under the circum- stances, appears to me to be insuperable. This objection refers to what the late Chancellor called the "mere modal regula- tions," for the government of the trustee in putting the property in the market. These regulations are prescribed by the decree, and it will be found, I think, upon an examination of the pre- cedents, that a departure from them in any essential respect, without first attempting to dispose of the property in conformity with them, will always prevent a ratification of the sale, if ob- jection be made. In Andrews vs. Scotton, 2 Bland, 643, it was said, " If a trustee who ia directed by the decree to sell the tract of land entire, and at public sale, should sell it at private sale, and in parcels, or in any other manner different from the mode prescribed, and report satisfactory reasons for so doing, and no objection is made, the sale may be ratified." It would appear from this case that if the trustee undertake to sell the property in a mode not warranted by the decree, he must not only report satisfactory reasons for so doing, but even then the sale will not be ratified if objection be made; and in the same case it is said, that the Court, acting as proprietor, and as if the property were its own, will avail itself of informa- tion from every quarter from which it may be derived; from the original parties to the suit, or the creditors for whose satis- |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 516 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives