McCartney v. Frost

4 Citing cases

  1. Goldberg v. Frick Electric Co.

    363 Md. 683 (Md. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that a sheriff's sale will be set aside if the advertisement contains information that is material and inaccurate and which is relied upon by a purchaser "so as to make the sale so unfair as to materially prejudice the purchaser, or others in interest"

    These representations are incomplete and not true. Now, there is not much law on the defects in a Sheriff's sale, and the Plaintiff in the case has raised the issue of McCartney v. Frost, a Court of Special Appeals case, 37 Md. App. 495, 378 A.2d 170, for the proposition that everything in an ad or everything else in the ad other than the time, place and date of the sale is mere surplusage. Counsel for both parties failed to specifically acknowledge before the trial court that McCartney v. Frost, 37 Md. App. 495, 378 A.2d 170 (1977), was reversed by McCartney v. Frost, 282 Md. 631, 386 A.2d 784 (1978).

  2. McCartney v. Frost

    282 Md. 631 (Md. 1978)   Cited 15 times
    Reversing trial court's refusal to set aside sale when spread between fair market value of property and sale price was 9 to 1

    On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. McCartney v. Frost, 37 Md. App. 495, 378 A.2d 170 (1977). The Court granted McCartney's petition for writ of certiorari.

  3. McCartney v. Frost

    281 Md. 741 (Md. 1977)

    Chief Judge Murphy did not participate in the consideration of this petition. Opinion of Court of Special Appeals reported: 37 Md. App. 495.

  4. Lentz v. Dypsky

    430 A.2d 109 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Md. 400, 402, 29 A. 611, 612 (1894). Recently, in McCartney v. Frost, 282 Md. 631, 638, 386 A.2d 784, 788 (1978), rev'g, 37 Md. App. 495, 378 A.2d 170 (1977), Judge Smith, for the Court of Appeals, quoted with approval the case of Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Braxtan, 220 Ind. 587, 592, 44 N.E.2d 989, 991 (1942). There the Indiana Court said: "The purpose of the sale is not to afford some stranger an opportunity to make off with the property . . . to his own great advantage and to the great disadvantage of either the judgment defendant or the judgment creditor."