Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1870-07-01
Important Decision Setting Aside a Trus-
tees Sale.


In the Circuit Court for Calvert County, in
the case of Leitch vs. Leitcb, exceptions were
filed by Mrs Leitch to the sale made by Ii.
Williams, Esq, trustee for the sale of the real
estate Of James Leitch, deceased. and on Sat
urday last Judge Magruder filed his opinion
and order setting aside the sale. The decision
is most important one. In his opinion the
Judge says:
'That Peregrine Bowen, the purchaser
stated to several persons who proposed to bid
for the land that he (Bowen) was going to
buy the land for the defendant William A.
Leitch, the eldest son, and one of the heirs Of
James Leitch; that said William was a poor
young man and not able to give high price
for the land, and that he hoped no one would
bid against him; these representations are
shown to have had the effect of preventing
several persons from bidding who were pre-
pared to give higher price for the land
Bowen is. however, himself returned as the
purchaser by bis own express direction to the
trustee, and several persons testify that after
the sale both Bowen and Leitch stated that
the land was bought for Bowen, and not for
Leitch. Some evidence has been offered on
the part of the purchaser for the purpose
of setting up some kind Of arrangement
or understanding between Bowen and Leitch
to the effect that Letch was to have the
land if he wished it, or at some future
time or whenever he should make his arrange
ments to take it, but this arrangement be-
tween them, if it exists, is of most indifnite
character, and does not show any obligation
valid in law upon the part of Bowen to COM
pei him to let Leitch have the property
Bowen is, in fact, the purchaser, and if the
sale should be ratified may refuse to let Leitch
have the property, or may demand a much
higher price, and thus by the use of Leitchs
name may have succeeded in obtaining tie
land at much lower price than it ought to
have sold for, and lower than it seems reason
able to suppose, from the evidence, it would
have sold for, but for the representations of
Bowen, the purchaser.
AS these representations, untrue in fact, as
shown by the evidence, have been the means
of preventing fair competition, it seems clear
from every principle of equity and from all
decisions that the purchaser cannot be allow
ed to enjoy the fruits Of his misconduct:
The inadequacy of price as shown by the
evidence is not of such character as stand
ing alone would be sufficient to vacate the
sale. Indeed it is not clear from the proof
that the land may have sold for reasonable
price under the circumstances of the encum-
brance OF the dover and the depreciation in
the value of lands, but the fact appears that
two persons at least attended the sale and
were Prepared to bid much higher price al
though aware of the encumbrance. The true
test of the value Of property is what it will
bring at public sale upon reasonable notice
and under circumstances tending to produce
a fair competition, and when a sale is so con-
Quoted, the inadequacy of price must be gross
indeed which will justify court of equity in
vacating the sale. But if any other just cause
to doubt the propriety of the sale Especially
when the rights of infants are involved) APP
pears, inadequacy Of price is circumstances
which will always have due weight,