Diffenderffer v. Knoche

• Citation: 84 A. 416,118 Md. 189
• Parties: DIFFENDERFFER v. KNOCHE.
• Decision Date: 10 May 1912
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

84 A. 416

118 Md. 189

DIFFENDERFFER v. KNOCHE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 10, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Carroll T. Bond, Judge.

Suit by William Stewart Diffenderffer against Fritz Knoche. Bill dismissed, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, THOMAS, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.

Thomas Mackenzie, for appellant. William C. Smith, for appellee.

BOYD C.J.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill filed by the appellant against the appellee for the specific performance of a contract of sale of a property in Baltimore city. The contract sought to be enforced is as follows:

"Balto Nov. 14/11. I have this day purchased from W. Stewart Diffenderffer the stable in fee, 1801 Lovegrove alley for the sum of four thousand dollars ($4000.00) and agree to pay said sum of four thousand dollars in cash, when deed is passed by my lawyer. Fritz Knoche."

"Baltimore November 14, 1911. Received of Mr. Fritz Knoche five dollars on account of purchase price of four thousand dollars ($4000) for stable 1801 Lovegrove alley, Baltimore, Maryland, all taxes and other expenses adjusted to date of transfer of deed. W. Stewart Diffenderffer. The above-named property is in fee, and the deed to that effect must be given. W. Stewart Diffenderffer."

The defense relied upon by the appellee was that he was acting for and on behalf of George Doebreiner, who is engaged in business on North avenue in the city of Baltimore, and it was the intention and desire of Mr. Doebreiner and himself to purchase the stable, which was at the corner of an alley in the rear of Mr. Doebreiner's establishment, and that at the time the defendant signed the agreement he thought it was for that stable. The evidence shows that there were on Lovegrove alley, situated between two other alleys, three two-story brick houses adjoining each other; one being the stable of Charles R. Diffenderffer, another the garage of James Caldwell, and the third the stable of the appellant. The stable nearest North avenue, where Mr. Doebreiner's establishment was, belonged to Charles R. Diffenderffer, who is a brother of the appellant, and a member of the same firm--Charles H. Ross & Co. They are in the wholesale liquor business, and the appellee, who is a "jobber of liquor," sometimes dealt with that firm, but testified that he only knew the appellant, and had never seen Charles R. Diffenderffer.

The appellant and the appellee differed as to whether it was made known to the former that the stable was being bought for Mr. Doebreiner before the contract was concluded, but on the 22d day of November, just eight days after the sale, the appellant and wife executed a deed to him for the property, which was tendered to the appellee's attorney on that day, but he refused to accept it. The deed was drawn by that attorney and sent to the appellant to be executed before the mistake as to the property was known by him, and the appellant testified that he did not know that Mr. Doebreiner was the one to whom it was to be conveyed until he received the deed. He must, however, have known that the appellee was either buying it for a third party or to sell it again, as he testified that the appellee said to him, "You know I do not want to work for nothing, and I expect to make something out of this, I have got to get something out of this," and he agreed to give him $150, although he said he "understood that it was a rake-off for himself." However that may be, the testimony shows conclusively that the appellee was buying the property for Mr. Doebreiner, and that the latter, the appellee, and a Mr. Max Miller went to see the stable, which now turns out to belong to Charles R. Diffenderffer, before this contract was made, and thought that was the one for sale. There can be no doubt from the evidence that the appellee did believe that he was buying the one which is now shown to belong to the brother, and he signed the contract under that belief. It is true that the stable of the brother was No. 1805 Lovegrove alley, while that of the appellant was No. 1801, but the appellant admitted that the glass on Which his number was fixed was broken, and the evidence is conflicting as to whether the number on the brother's stable was easily seen. There was a sign on each of the stables; the one reading, "For sale or rent. Apply to W. S. Diffenderffer, 109 Commerce Street," and the other was larger, but had the same thing on it, except the initials were "C. R.," instead of "W. S."

The testimony shows that Mr. Miller, Mr. Knoche, and Mr Doebreiner were members of the board of directors of a building association, and that in May, 1911, they had considerable money on hand, and were endeavoring to loan it out on mortgages. In talking the matter over, Mr. Doebreiner, who was in the confectionery business and kept a number of horses, said that there was a stable back of his property which he would buy if he could get it for $4,000, and give a mortgage for that amount on the stable, and would include as additional security some ground rents he owned. Mr. Miller went to see Mr. C. R. Diffenderffer, and made an appointment to go through the stable with him on the following Monday, which they did. He said Mr. C. R. Diffenderffer "showed me the brass stalls, the box stalls, and showed me upstairs with a living apartment in it, where anybody could live, and I thoroughly went through it." They failed to agree on the price; Mr. Miller offering $4,000 and according to him Mr. Diffenderffer asked $5,000, although the latter testified that he asked $6,000 and had refused to take less than that sum. Miller said he told the appellee about the stable, and that the appellee was president and he was treasurer of the building association. The matter was dropped at that time, but in November an application was made to the association for a loan on that stable by Mr. Doebreiner through Mr. Knoche, who had been authorized to buy it for Mr. Doebreiner, if he could get it for $4,000. Miller had taken the appellee to the C. R. Diffenderffer stable in May, but they did not get inside of it at that time. Two or three weeks before the contract was made Mr. Freeman, a salesman of Charles H. Ross & Co., spoke to the appellee about a stable which Mr. Diffenderffer wanted to sell, and he went through the one he had been at before (which is the one owned by C. R. Diffenderffer), believing that to be the one referred to by Mr. Freeman, who was not with him at the stable, and he told him to tell Mr. Diffenderffer to come to see him. On the 14th of November the appellant went to see him and the contract was made. They differ as to what occurred before the contract was signed; the appellee contending that he spoke to the appellant about the box stalls and a cedar box which were in the stable of what turned out to be that of C. R. Diffenderffer, while the appellant denies that he said anything to him about them, but testified that he offered to go with the appellee to the...