L.C. Smith & Bros. Typewriter Co. v. Riddlemoser Co. of Baltimore City
| Decision Date | 13 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 79. |
| Citation | 94 A. 655,126 Md. 186 |
| Parties | L. C. SMITH & BROS. TYPEWRITER CO. v. RIDDLEMOSER CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Walter I. Dawkins Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by the Riddlemoser Company of Baltimore City against the L. C Smith & Bros. Typewriter Company for an injunction. From an order granting a preliminary injunction on an ex parte application, defendant appeals. Affirmed and remanded.
Henry H. Dinneen, of Baltimore, for appellant.
George P. Bagby, of Baltimore (Robert N. Baer, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction upon an ex parte application. The bill and exhibits were filed on the 10th day of December, 1914, and on the same day the injunction issued. On the following day certain amendments to the original bill and an additional exhibit under an order of court first obtained, were filed, and the injunction continued. On the 24th day of December, 1914, the defendant demurred to the bill, and on the 29th of December filed an order for an appeal.
It is alleged by the original bill that the appellee is the owner of a six-story and basement building, situated in the congested business section of Baltimore city; that the first floor of the building is divided into seven stores, all of which were under leases, the appellee being one of such lessees and occupying one of the said stores and the cellar space thereunder, and the upper floors being under leases to a business college and seven light manufacturing firms; that because of the danger of fire to the building, it having its own heating, light, and power plant, and having already been destroyed by fire twice, and because of the high rate of fire insurance, the appellee planned to install an automatic sprinkler system in and upon the building; that the installation of such a system would greatly reduce the chance of an extensive fire in the building, and would reduce the cost of insurance on the building from $1.20 per $100 to 35 cents per $100, and on the centents of the building from $1.90 per $100 to 60 cents per $100, and would thus save to the appellee, and the tenants of the building, about $1,700 annually; that, in pursuance of the plan, the appellee obtained the cooperation of most of its tenants, and the assent and express permission of all, to install the system; that the permission from the appellant was in the form of a letter, a copy of which was filed as an exhibit, and was as follows:
That, after having obtained the express permission of all the tenants, the appellee entered into a contract with a sprinkler concern to have the system installed, for a sum exceeding $3,000; that on the 27th of November, 1914, after a large portion of the work of intallation had been completed throughout the building, and only a portion remained to be done in the part of the building occupied by the appellant, the appellee received, through its attorney, the following letter from the appellant's attorney, and filed as an exhibit:
That an effort to adjust the differences was made by the appellee, but on December 7th another letter was received from the attorney, advising that the appellant would vacate the premises by January 1st, unless the pipes necessary for the system were removed forthwith, and suggesting that if light were furnished free the agent of the appellant would advise the appellant to stay on; that on December 9th the workmen of the sprinkler company were ordered out of the premises, and prevented from completing the installation.
It is further alleged that the appellee has contracts with most of its tenants, contingent upon the completion of the system by January 1, 1915, and that it will be impossible to complete the system unless the work begun in the appellant's leased premises is completed; that the work, when completed on the said premises, will be of little, if any, inconvenience to the appellant, but, on the contrary, will be of great benefit.
In conformity to the prayer of the bill, the court passed an order enjoining the appellant and its agents from refusing to the appellee or its agents entrance to the leased premises for the purpose of installing the system, and from interfering in any wise with the sprinkler system, upon condition that the appellee file a bond in the penalty of $1,000 and with the usual provision for a five days' notice, upon motion to rescind or dissolve. There were filed as exhibits the letters or copies set out above and a paper purporting to be the contract with the sprinkler company.
The amendments to the bill set out facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial