clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 518   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

518 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
sale, subject to the ratification of the sale by the Court, after
public notice given to show cause why it should not be con-
firmed. And even in these cases, when an ineffectual attempt
has been made to sell according to the decree, and the property
is then sold upon terms varying from it, objections to its ratifi-
cation will prevail which would be disregarded if made to a sale
in all respects in conformity with its requirements. And this,
for the reason stated by this Court in the recent case of La-
trobe vs. Herbert et al., in which, upon full argument, it was
held, that the faith of the Court was never pledged to ratify
a sale made upon terms or in a mode varying from the decree,
even though the property had once been put in the market in
exact conformity with it, and the" attempt so to sell had been
unsuccessful. The principle of the decision being, that when
the trustee, who is the agent of the Court, has sold the pro-
perty in the mode and upon the terms specified in the decree,
the Court has, by anticipation, bound itself to make good the
sale, and will always do so, unless fraud, accident, surprise,
mistake, or some cause is shown, manifesting a gross want of
discretion in the trustee. Whilst in the case of a sale upon
different terms, or in a different mode, inasmuch as no previous
authority was given, the Court may, without any imputation of
, bad faith, refuse to give its sanction to it. In the one case,
the agent having acted within the scope of his authority, and
according to the mode prescribed for him by his principal, the
latter, unless for some one or more of the reasons which have
been suggested, ia bound in good faith to give validity to his
act; whilst in the other, the act derives its validity, if valid at
all, from the subsequent adoption and ratification of it by the
principal.
In the case now under consideration, the agent of this Court
no doubt, from inadvertence, has departed from one of the most
important directions of the decree, that of the public notice to
be given of the time, place, manner, and terms of sale, and it
would, as I conceive, be establishing a precedent full of danger,
to ratify a sale under such circumstances in the face of an
objection for that cause.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

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 518   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

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.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives