Cramer v. Baugher
| Decision Date | 14 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | 13. |
| Parties | CRAMER et al. v. BAUGHER et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Motion for Reargument Denied April 18, 1917.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Frederick County, in Equity; Glenn H Worthington, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by William A. Cramer against Michael S. Baugher and wife and another to have the property of defendants, which was subject to chattel mortgage, sold by a trustee, and the proceeds distributed to the parties entitled thereto, in which suit W Plummer Bird and another, as copartners trading as W. P. Bird & Bro., were made parties plaintiff on their own petition. From a decree disallowing the claim of Bird & Bro. and directing them to pay a sum to the defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded for proceedings in accordance with opinion.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
James E. Tippett, of Baltimore (Geo. L. Mathingly, of Baltimore and C. C. Waters, of Frederick, on the brief), for appellants.
Arthur D. Willard, of Frederick, for appellees.
William A. Cramer on April 18, 1913, alleging that he was a judgment creditor of Michael S. Baugher and Rhoda V. Baugher, his wife, and that the sheriff of Frederick county, by virtue of writs of fi. fa. issued upon said judgments, had levied upon the personal property of the defendants, but because of the inability of the sheriff to transfer title to the property under the executions, and because of the lien created by a prior mortgage or a bill of sale of the same property, filed his bill praying the court to appoint a trustee to sell the property and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of said judments after first discharging and paying off the lien created by said mortgage or bill of sale. Although the docket entries show that a demurrer was filed to this bill, no action apparently was taken in reference to it, and on July 29, 1913, the Baughers filed an answer, and no further action was taken until March 9, 1915, when the court granted the prayer of a petition filed by W. Plummer Bird and Claudius H. Bird, copartners trading as W. P. Bird & Bro., making them parties plaintiff "with the right to file such necessary papers in said cause as they may deem right and proper, looking to the protection of their rights as landlord of the defendants." On the same day Bird Bros. intervened by filing a petition in which they alleged that the Baughers were tenants of their farm and were indebted unto them for one year's cash rent, and prayed the court to appoint a trustee to sell the personal property of the defendants and to have the proceeds distributed among the parties entitled according to their respective interests.
The Baughers filed an answer, which later was amended, by which they admitted the tenancy, but denied that they were indebted for any rent by reason of the fact that the Birds had failed to carry out their covenant to repair, and that thereby, through the untenantable condition of the premises, they had suffered damages largely in excess of the amount of rent to be paid for the premises if tenanted. Exceptions were filed to this answer, but the court overruled them, and, after hearing testimony, passed a decree disallowing the claim for rent and directing that the Birds pay to the Baughers the sum of $101.18, the amount expended by them for repairs. From that decree this appeal was taken.
The first question, to be determined is whether the landlords were bound to repair; for, unless a landlord so binds himself, the tenant cannot compel him to repair. Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, § 327. The testimony shows that under a written lease, signed by the Birds as landlords and the Baughers as tenants, the Baughers entered into possession of the farm for a term beginning May 1, 1913, and ending March 31, 1914, at a rental of $300, payable $27.27 monthly in advance. The lease contained a covenant that the landlords should do all necessary repairs. During January and February, 1914, negotiations were commenced between the landlords, or their authorized agents, and the tenants for a leasing of the premises for another year. It was agreed that the rent was to be raised to $35 a month, and a lease was prepared and executed by the landlords to that effect, and mailed to the tenants, who finding upon examination that the clause as to repairs contained in the original lease had been omitted, and in its stead one inserted requiring the tenants to make the repairs, returned the lease unsigned with a letter stating they would not accept the lease with that change. There was more correspondence in which the parties never came to terms as to that point, and the tenants continued, after the term had ended, in possession and recognized by the landlords as tenants. There was no effort upon the part of the landlords to avail themselves of the provisions of law to dispossess them of the premises, but they permitted them to occupy the property and recognized them as tenants, without having had any settlement of the question of repairs.
It seems so well established that it must be regarded as settled now that, where a tenant is allowed to remain in possession after the expiration of a term, with the consent of the landlord, the law presumes the holding to be on the terms of the original demise and subject to the same rent and to all the covenants of the original lease. Vrooman v. McKaig, 4 Md. 450, 59 Am. Dec. 85; Hall v. Myers, 43 Md. 446; Hobbs v. Batory, 86 Md. 68, 37 A. 713; Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, § 58.
The fact in this case that the rent had been changed by agreement would not alter the rule, except as to that particular. We must hold, therefore, that the landlords were bound, under the holding over, by the covenant to repair contained in the original lease.
Before the end of the original term the property was visited by a severe windstorm,...
To continue reading
Request your trial