| Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 519 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GLENN VS. WOOTTEN. 519 Is it not possible to vindicate the sale as reported from this objection, upon the ground that the notice of it was a mere continuation of that which was advertised for the 7th of De- cember last, because on that day no notice was given that the sale would be postponed to any particular day. The proof shows that the weather on the 7th of December was most inclement, so much so, that no persons attended, or at least so few, that there could have been no competition. Mr. Charles C. Hill states in answer to the 5th interrogatory, " I do recol- lect the day. It was .very wet and inclement. I went to the premises with my aunt, Mrs. Mary Hill. I found no one there, and suggested to the trustee to postpone the sale, and readvertise the land. I waited there until 3 o'clock, and no one attended. I then made the suggestion above." And the proof of all the witnesses who testify upon the subject, corro- borate this statement in regard to the weather. The trustee appears to have adopted the suggestion of Mr. Hill, and accordingly, on the 13th of December, advertised the property to be sold on the 17th of the same month, and the proof of the editor and publisher of the paper in which it was inserted, shows that it appeared in his paper but once, that being the day of the date of the advertisement.' There was, therefore, but four days' notice given, though the decree expressly requires the trustee to give " at least three weeks' notice, inserted in some newspaper printed in Prince George's County, and such other notice as she may think proper, of the time, place, manner, and terms of sale." There was, there- fore, a total failure to comply with this most vital direction of the decree, a direction which, perhaps, of all others, ia most essential to the safety of persons interested in the sale of the estates of deceased persons, because unless public notice is given, competition, so indispensable to the disposition of pro- perty at its full value, can never or very rarely be secured. It cannot be said that this sale should be ratified, because there was one attempt to sell the property at public auction after due notice, which was unavailing. The state of the weather, and the absence of bidders, on attempt to sell on the |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
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 519 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