Gilman v. Smith

• Decision Date: 12 June 1889
• Citation: Gilman v. Smith, 71 Md. 171, 17 A. 1035 (Md. 1889)
• Parties: GILMAN ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

17 A. 1035

71 Md. 171

GILMAN ET AL. v. SMITH ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 12, 1889

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, IRVING, BRYAN, MCSHERRY, and ROBINSON, JJ.

John K. Cowen, E. J. D. Cross, and Geo. D Penniman, for appellants.

Geo. R. Willis, for appellees.

ROBINSON J.

We agree with the court below that time in this case is of the essence of the contract, and that the extension of time asked by the appellants to enable them to perfect the title to the Cannon-Street lot was properly refused.The facts, shortly stated, are as follows: The appellees bought at public auction of the appellants, as trustees of the Abbott Iron Company, a lot of ground in Baltimore city known as the "Puddle & Platt Mill Lot."This lot is composed of a number of smaller lots, the titles to some of which were found to be defective, and the appellees thereupon filed exceptions to the ratification of the sale.Subsequently however, the titles to all the smaller lots were made satisfactory to the purchasers with the exception of the bed of Cannon street, which runs through the entire block of lots as sold, and which street for a number of years had been closed by proceedings instituted by the Abbott Iron Company.The sale was, in the opinion of the trustees, an advantageous one, and they were anxious, therefore, that it should be ratified by the court.Accordingly, on the 4th day of June 1887, they entered into an agreement with the appellees by the terms of which the latter were to take a deed of the entire property as sold, and to pay the whole purchase money, $54,500, less the sum of $2,885.40, estimated value of the Cannon-Street property, and the appellees further agreed to pay the sum of $2,885.40 thus retained by them provided the trustees on or before the 1st of October, 1887, tendered to them a complete title to the Cannon-Street lot.This agreement the trustees made with the consent of the parties in interest, all of whom were sui juris, and it was subsequently ratified by the court.The trustees were unable, however, it seems, to perfect the title to this lot within the time fixed by the agreement.They did, however, tender to the appellees an unsigned deed, which upon its face purported to convey the interest of certain grantors therein named, with an agreement on the part of one of the grantors to take the necessary proceedings in equity to perfect the title, upon security being given to cover the costs and expenses of the suit.This deed the appellees refused to accept, and the question is...