Garbis v. Weistock

• Decision Date: 05 February 1947
• Docket Number: 51.
• Citation: Garbis v. Weistock, 187 Md. 549, 51 A.2d 154 (Md. 1947)
• Parties: GARBIS v. WEISTOCK.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

51 A.2d 154

187 Md. 549

GARBIS v. WEISTOCK.

No. 51.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 5, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.

Suit by Morris Garbis against Rose Weistock for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain leasehold properties. From a decree refusing to grant specific performance, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Benjamin L. Freeny, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Eldridge Hood Young, of Baltimore, (Jerome Robinson of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS GARSON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

GRASON, Judge.

The appeal in this case is from a decree entered by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City refusing to grant specific performance of a contract for the sale of certain leasehold properties situate in said City.

Morris Garbis (vendee) and Rose Weistock (vendor) each signed the contract under seal, which was dated the 9th day of May 1945. By the terms thereof the vendor bargained to sell to the vendee, and the latter agreed to purchase properties known as 1240-1238-1236 West Ostend Street. Each of these properties was subject to an annual ground rent of $30.00. The price to be paid for the properties was $3000.00, of which $200.00 was paid prior to the signing thereof; the balance of $2800.00 to be paid in cash within sixty days from date of the contract. It provided for adjustments of taxes ground rents, house rents, and any other public charges at the time of the settlement. It further provided: 'Time is the essence of this contract.' The vendee prepared the contract. He engaged J. Dallas Kirwin, an attorney, to search the titles to and redeem the ground rents on these properties.

The vendee had no communication with the vendor from May 9th until, according to his testimony, he had Abraham W. Saul, an attorney who sometimes handled real estate matters for him to call the vendor over the telephone at her home in Washington. The vendee was present at the time Saul made the telephone call, but did not hear the conversation. The vendee and Saul said that this telephone call was made before the time limited in the contract for settlement and thought it was around July fifth. The purpose of the telephone call was to agree to a time and place to put through the settlement. The record does not show why the vendee got Saul to make this telephone call, or why he did not make the call himself. Saul stated that the vendor told him over the telephone: 'She would like to postpone the settlement as she was not feeling well, that she had an old injury, and that she was anticipating going to the hospital for treatment, whether it would be agreeable to postpone this settlement for a later date, and I asked her when, and she said some time in September would be satisfactory, that she was in no hurry.' The vendor denied this. She came to Baltimore every Saturday for the purpose of collecting the weekly rent from these properties. Her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Sarah Weistock, lived in Baltimore and it was the vendor's custom to go to her daughter-in-law's home on Saturdays when she came to Baltimore. The vendor was at her daughter-in-law's home on Saturday, June 30th, and requested her daughter-in-law to call the vendee on the telephone, as she wanted to know the time and place to meet him for the purpose of making settlement for these properties. She testified that she called the vendee over the 'phone from Washington on July 5th and he was not at home but she talked to his wife and told her to have the vendee call her, which he did that day. She testified she told the vendee, in this telephone conversation: 'Mr. Garbis it looks to me very funny you don't call me or notify me where and when and what hour will take place the settlement', so he said, 'That is all right, Mrs. Weistock,' and he gave me the address. He said, 'Saratoga No. 2 fourth floor, room 25, at Mr. Dallas Kirwin's office', and that was the conversation with Mr. Garbis.' She denied that she made any statement in this conversation about putting off the time for the settlement. She said she waited in Washington until July 12th, when she went to Atlantic City, and came back on the 26th of July.

Mrs. Sarah Weistock, the vendor's daughter-in-law, testified she called the vendee on July 2, 1945, for her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law had asked her to get in touch with the vendee for her and to find out from him when and where the settlement was to be put through. Her evidence is: 'I spoke to him (vendee) where it is to be, he told me he was trying to make arrangements to buy the ground so that when they did settle the houses he would be able to settle the ground and the houses at the same time, and he did ask me if I thought it would be all right with my mother-in-law if they had the settlement at a later date, and I told him I would have to get in touch with her and see if it was satisfactory with her.'

The vendor did not see the vendee from May 9th until the 28th of July. She said that he tried to telephone her but was not successful in reaching her over the telephone and because of this she requested her daughter-in-law to call the vendee. This was the reason for the daughter-in-law calling the vendee over the telephone on July 2nd. Vendor called the vendee when she returned from Atlantic City and he asked her to meet him in front of the Hippodrome Theatre and she did meet him there on the 28th of July. The vendee met her and his testimony as to what she said at that time is strikingly similar to the testimony of Saul as to what the vendor said to him over the telephone. The vendee stated she said: 'She was also anticipating an operation from an old injury she had suffered some years back, and she did not want too much excitement on her mind, and if we would not mind it would not made any difference to her to extend the time to a later date, until about the latter part of September--any day would be satisfactory to her, because as far as she was concerned she would not lose by it, she would still be collecting the rents, and if it did not make any difference to me she would like to arrange it for that time, and I agreed with her it would be all right.'

She said that when she met the vendee on July 28th, 'He started to tell me I should not pay my bills because he is going to own the ground, and I should not pay the ground rent bills, and I should not make any payments for nothing because he is the owner', and she told him: 'It looks funny not to pay bills.'

Q. 'Did you make any agreement then or any time whatever, either in writing or verbally, to put the transaction through some time later?' A. 'No, sir, when he started to give me orders not to pay the bills, it was not satisfactory at all, and when he did not make the settlement when the agreement says, I did not pay no more attention.'

On July 28th she told the vendee that one house was vacant. She further said that she did not make the appointment to meet the vendee on the 28th of July, but she met him there; that Mr. Kirwin talked to her and asked her to let him know when she returned from Atlantic City, which she did, and Kirwin made the appointment for her to meet the vendee on July 28th. She said on that occasion nothing was said about the contract and that she did not change the date named in the contract for settlement. She further stated that the reason she met the vendee on July 28th was she wanted to see why they did not settle, and 'why he did not go through with the settlement'.

The court asked her: 'You wanted to go through with the settlement then, is that right?' (The witness) 'I did not tell him nothing. When he started to tell me those things, I did not like it.'

(The court) 'The only reason for seeing him was to go ahead with the settlement, wasn't it?' (The witness) 'I wanted to find out why he did not make the settlement.'

(The court) 'Why did you care?' (The witness) 'I don't know.'

(The court) 'What was the idea in your talking to him if not to set another date for the settlement?' (The witness) 'Not to set another settlement?'

(The court) 'Isn't that what you intended to do?' (The witness) 'It was suitable to me, the date that he made the bill of sale out, the contract.'

(The court) 'But that has passed.' (The witness) 'That was not my fault.'

(The court) 'Then why did you want to talk to him any more?' (The witness) 'That is all. I promised I would see him, and I saw him.'

The vendor further testified that sometime in August she had the following telephone conversation with the vendee: 'I tole him one house was vacant. He said, 'That is what I want, the vacant house.' And I told him who I rented it to. He said, 'I want you to give them back the rent. I don't want a tenant. I don't want nothing, and don't pay no ground rents.' And I said, 'Since when are you so big a boss to give me instructions not to pay my bills.' He said, 'You will have to get yourself a lawyer,' because I did not have a lawyer before.' Unless the answers of the vendor to the court's questions can be considered as corroboration of the testimony of the vendee or of the witness Saul, there is no corroboration of their testimony.

The vendor further testified that about two hours after she talked with the vendee on July 5th over the telephone she had the following telephone call: "This is Mr. Dallas Kirwin speaking. I am the attorney of Mr. Garbis,' and he said to me, 'Mrs. Weistock, Mr. Garbis made a deal behind my back. I am not ready with the settlement." Kirwin was employed by the vendee to search the titles to these properties and also to redeem the ground rents.

On May 24, 1945, Herman J. Gerger, an attorney, wrote a letter to Mr. A. Moran, advising that his client intended to...