Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1905-10-04
TIE LAWLER-FRENCH SUIT.

the case of Lswler ct ais. vs.. French,
&c, from the Corporation Court OF this
city: =.
The object of this suit was to enloin
the appellant, Lawler, from prosecuting
an action of unlawful detainer to recover
the possession of a house and lot pur-
chased by him from the trustees in a
deed of trust, executed to secure the
payment OF money loaned or advanced
by building and loan association to
Robert w. French, one of its members,
together with the dues and premiums on
the borrowers stock, fines for the nom
payment of such dues and premiums,
and all taxes and assessments on the
trust property during the continuance OF
the advancement; to set aside the sale
and conveyance made by the trustees;
and to have an accounting between the
association and the borrowing member.
The court upon the hearing OF the cause
granted the relief prayed for, and from
that decree this appeal was allowed.
The grounds state ! in the bill for hav-
ing the sale and conveyance made by
the trustees set are, () That at the
time of the sale the complainant was not
three months in arrears in the payment
Of dues, fines, interest or instalments
payatle to the ASSOCIATION (2) That the
sale WAS ordered without notice to him
or demand upon him for the payment OF
any dues, fines or interest and was IN
fraud of his rights and contrary to the
covenants and terms of the deed OF
trust (3) That there were only four
persons present at the sale besides the
inmates of bis house; (4) That his SIS
ter-in-law was present at the sale and
instructed and directed friend who was
near her to make bid in excess of the
price at which the property was knock
ed of. which she thought had been COM
municated to the auctioneer, but by
some mistake or misunderstanding was
not cried (5) That the price at which
the house and lot were sold was grossly
INADEQUATE, and a fraud upon the COM
plainant's rights, as the property was
worth more than double the amount Tor
which it was sold (6) That the COM
plainant believes and charges that there
was fraud and cOllusion between the
nurchaser and the trustees, both connlv-
ing at the sale at small figures, and al
though the complainant protested against
the sale and offered to reimburse the
purchaser, he declined to accept the
money he paid for the property and that
the whole transaction so far as the pur-
chaser and the trustees were concerned
was concluded in less than two days
after the sale.
The trustees and purchaser demurred
TO and answered the bill. In their an
swers they deny all the material ailega-
tions relied on as grounds for setting
aside the sale and conveyance except
the statement in the bill that the COM
plainant was not three months in ar
rears on his monthly dues, fines, interest
or instalments. While the answers CT
the trustees admit that the complainant
was not three months in arrears on ac.
count of his dues, etc., they aver that
be bad not paid the taxes upon the
property for several years, and that
Immediately prior TO advertising the
property for sale by the trustees the
building association had been required
to pay and did pay the said taxes and
assessments, amounting to the sum OF
$39S.54, which the complainant, al
though often requested, had refused to
refund. The trustees further state in
their answer that after the sale and
CONVEYANCE sought TO be set aside the
said French had ratified the sale by
giving an order upon them for the bal
ance Of the proceeds of sale after salts
fying the debt secured by the trust deed,
and that they paid over the same to the
assignee and had settled their account:
before the commissioner of accounts.
The complainant failed to prove the ma
terial allegations of bis bill. There is no
the slightest evidence of fraud or collusior
on the part of the trustees and the pur
: chaser Although there were but few
persons present at the sale, it was adver
tised in the manner prescribed by thu
trust deed in newspaper of the city, o
large circulation. The auctioneer biz
on the property for the association sun
G in excess of its debt, which was NOR
!. than another person who had gone Their
3 TO bid was willing to give for it. 1t wa
I sold to the purchaser, Lawler, as tn
1 HIGHEST and best bidder There wa
!, nothing iu the condition Of the weathe
: . to prevent persons from attending tn
!. sale. so far as the record shows. Will
the proof shows that the house and 10
cost much more than they were sold for
il further appears that their location
a yery undesirable one, and that sucf
residential property in that part of tn
city does not sell for anything like il
F, original cost. 1t is by no means clea
that the property, if offered for sal
again would sell for much, if any
, more than the price at which it did sell
\ At least there is no such inadequacy 9
> price shown as would justify the court ii
IN setting aside the sale on that ground.
IS, The clear preponderance of evidenc
m. is, that the sister-in-law of the appellee
'f' French, who was present at the sale
ed did not bid or authorize any one else
nd bid for her.
,, The allegation of lthe bill, that MI
Or. Or. French, who was presentat the sale, Pre-
tested against the sale, is not only nc
= sustained by the proof, but after the sal
he assigned to Mr.. Andrews, one
= his creditors, so much OF his interest
nd the nroceeds of The sale az was necessar