Caplan v. Buckner

• Decision Date: 25 June 1914
• Docket Number: 31.
• Citation: Caplan v. Buckner, 123 Md. 590, 91 A. 481 (Md. 1914)
• Parties: CAPLAN v. BUCKNER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

91 A. 481

123 Md. 590

CAPLAN v. BUCKNER.

No. 31.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 25, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Henry Duffy, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Louis Buckner against Harry L. Caplan.From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISONURNER, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

M Albert Levinson and Julius H. Wyman, both of Baltimore, for appellant.

Louis Hollander and David Ash, both of Baltimore, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Baltimore city, requiring performance of a verbal contract of sale of a leasehold property in said city.In 1912the appellee, plaintiff below, owned the property known as number 914 Watson street, and the appellant owned and occupied as his place of business the adjoining property number 915 Baltimore street.According to the plaintiff's testimony, in February, 1912, he received through his daughter a telephone message that the defendant wanted to see him about 914 Watson street.He went to see the defendant the next day, and the defendant wanted to know if he would sell him the property at a reasonable price, or rent it to him.He told the plaintiff that he did not have enough room in his property, and that he wanted the plaintiff's property as a place to store his goods.The plaintiff told him he would rather sell the property.The defendant asked him what he would take for it, and the plaintiff told him $2,000.The defendant then asked him "if it was in fee or had a ground rent," and the plaintiff replied, "It is subject to a ground rent of $40 a year, payable $20 every six months."The defendant said he had purchased the property on Watson street adjoining the plaintiff's property and subject to the same ground rent, for $1,500, and that he would pay the plaintiff the same price for his property, but would not pay $2,000.The plaintiff told him that the property he purchased had a store front, while the plaintiff's property had marble trimmings, and would make a nice home, and that if the defendant converted his property into a dwelling it would cost him more than the plaintiff asked for his property.The defendant said that if he purchased the property he would rebuild, and if the front brick and marble trimmings were of any value to the plaintiffhe would let him have them.The plaintiff finally told the defendant that he would take $1,800 for the property, but he declined to purchase it at that price.As the property was then vacant, the defendant asked him if he would not rent it to him until after the "Hebrew Holidays," that is "until the last part of April or May," and said that at that time he would be prepared to make him a better offer, and that it would be worth $10 a month to him in the meantime for the purpose for which he wanted to use it.The plaintiff, in view of the fact that the defendant only wanted the property for a short time, and with the hope of getting a better offer for it from him, rented it to him for $10 per month.In June the defendant notified the plaintiff that he was through with the property, and requested the plaintiff to come to see him.The plaintiff went to see the defendant, and they agreed upon the terms of sale, which were that the plaintiff would convey the property to the defendant subject to the ground rent of $40, clear of all liens or incumbrances, for $1,600, $600 of which was to be paid cash on the day of settlement, and the remaining $1,000 to be secured to the plaintiff by a mortgage of the property.At the time this agreement was made the plaintiff told the defendant that there was a building association mortgage on the property which would have to be released.The defendant employed Mr. M. Albert Levinson to examine the title, and the plaintiff gave him a reference to his title.In making the examination Mr. Levinson discovered that there was another mortgage on that and a number of other properties, spoken of in the testimony as the Cronhardt mortgage, which the plaintiff did not know of.When Mr. Levinson informed the plaintiff of the existence of this mortgage, the plaintiff went to see the defendant and told him of it, and told him that he would see the mortgagee for the purpose of having the mortgage released as to his property.It was then arranged that the settlement for the property would be made a month later, about the 1st of August.The plaintiff went to see about the Cronhardt mortgage, and the mortgagee refused to release it unless the entire mortgage debt was paid.The plaintiff then saw the defendant and told him what the mortgagee had said, and that it would be some time before he could secure the release.The defendant then suggested that he would take possession of the property as the purchaser and owner, and continue in possession of it until the plaintiff could give him a good title, clear of all incumbrances, and would in the meantime pay the plaintiff interest on the purchase price of $1,600 and all expenses on the property, including the ground rent, taxes, and water rent, and that as soon as the plaintiff could give him a clear title he would pay the $1,600 in the way that they had previously stated, and the plaintiff agreed to that arrangement and to give him a good title to the property.Foreclosure proceedings were instituted on the Cronhardt mortgage, and the plaintiff was not able to secure a release of the mortgage as to his property until the following May.In the meantime several persons approached him with the view of buying or renting the property, and in February, 1913, he went to see the defendant and wanted him to pay him six months' interest on the purchase price and the expenses for six months, showing him at the time a memoranda of the six months' interest, ground rent, taxes, and water rent, amounting to $82.At the same time he suggested to the defendant that they should have their agreement reduced to writing, and the defendant told him to have the agreement prepared.The plaintiff did so, and took the agreement, which was prepared in duplicate, to the defendant and proposed to him to execute them.The defendant told him that he did not have time that day, and asked him to come back "day after to-morrow."The plaintiff went to see the defendant again as he requested, and the defendant told him that he did not understand "much about agreements" that he preferred to show it to Mr. Levinson, and that he would not do anything until Mr. Levinson saw it.The plaintiff went to see the defendant again, and defendant told him that Mr. Levinson had promised him to come in, but had not been there yet.The plaintiff got tired of the matter being postponed, and went to see the defendant in March, and said to him, "This is not business," and the defendant replied, "Well, you can take my word of honor that I am so awful busy that I don't know what to do first; leave the thing go until after Easter, and you will have my assurance that you will not be bothered or have any trouble with me, everything will be all right and settled up and adjusted in regard to expenses."About the last of May the plaintiff succeeded in getting the Cronhardt mortgage released, and he then went to see defendant and told him that he was ready to give him a clear title to the property.The defendant told him that he would see Mr. Levinson, and offered the plaintiff some money on account of the expenses we have mentioned; but, as they had agreed on the last of June as the date for the transfer of the property and final settlement, the plaintiff told the defendant that he could wait that much longer for the amount due on account of the expenses.The plaintiff reminded the defendant that he would have to have the cash payment of $600 on the day of settlement, as he had arranged to turn that over to the building association on account of its mortgage, which was to be released as to the property to be conveyed to the defendant, and the defendant said he would give him $100 on account of the "purchase price then."He gave the plaintiff his check for $100 and told his bookkeeper to write a receipt for $100 "on account of purchase price for 914 Watson street," which the plaintiff signed.The defendant told the plaintiff to come in in about a week, and he would give him some more money, and when the plaintiff went to see him as suggested, he gave the plaintiff another check for $100 and took from him a receipt like the one he signed before.The plaintiff further testified that when the defendant gave him the second check the defendant told him that but for his agreement to purchase the property he would not buy it; that the conditions had changed; that when he agreed to purchase it he had made arrangements to have it torn down and to rebuild it and his adjoining property, but that he had since concluded that he did not have to make any alterations in the building, and that the defendant further said to him that, as "there was nothing signed,"he would be satisfied if the plaintiff would release him from the purchase, and that he would give him the $100; that he told the defendant that he had purchased a property, and that he had arranged to use the mortgage that he was to get from the defendant in paying for it, and that he, plaintiff, could not very well get out of that agreement.The deed for the property in question was prepared by Mr. Levinson, the mortgage and mortgage notes were prepared by the plaintiff's counsel, arrangement was made for the release of the building association mortgage, and, according to the agreement of the plaintiff and defendant, they and their counsel met at the office of Mr. Levinson on the 30th of June to close the matter.In going over the items of expense from...