Mangione v. Braverman

Decision Date09 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 250,250
Citation199 A.2d 225,234 Md. 357
PartiesNicholas B. MANGIONE v. Herman S. BRAVERMAN et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

John R. Cicero, Baltimore, for appellant.

J. Wilmer Cronin, Baltimore (Fenneman, Sachs & Cronin, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

This appeal followed the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to the declaration of the appellant Mangione, seeking to recover the value of his services to the defendants, the appellees here, and monies advanced on their behalf, on the ground that the agreement for the breach of which suit was filed was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because (a) an essential part of it was a parol promise of two of the defendants to deed land (on which a building was to be erected) and (b) performance by Mangione would not, in a suit at law, serve to take the contract out of the statute.

The declaration contained three common counts, one for work done and materials provided, a second for money lent, and the third for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendants and a special fourth count in which it is alleged that: the appellant Mangione, a builder, entered into an oral agreement with the appellees, Herman and Alvin Braverman, and the appellees, Peter Mavrelis and Mary, his wife, under which Mangione was to build an apartment house on land in Aberdeen, Maryland, owned by the Mavrelises, with money procured by the Bravermans, who held themselves out as financiers; the land was to be deeded to a Maryland corporation to be formed, called Fountain Paza, Inc., and the Mavrelises, the Bravermans and Mangione were each to receive one-third of the capital stock in return for their respective contributions to the joint venture, that is, the land, the financing and the building; in return for the promises of the Mavrelises and the Bravermans and one-third of the stock in the corporation which was to own and operate the apartment project, Mangione agreed 'to oversee the planning, building and erection of the apartment house Project on said land and was to arrange for architectural and engineering services, as well as building, and other permits * * *'; for the monies he advanced he was to be repaid by Fountain Plaza, Inc., and, also, was assured reimbursement by the Mavrelises and the Bravermans personally; Mangione paid a lawyer $150.00 to incorporate Fountain Plaza, Inc., and an architect $9,000 to draw plans for the apartment house, with the express knowledge and approval of the Mavrelises and the Bravermans (and the architect drew the plans after frequent consultations with and the ultimate approval of all of the parties); Mangione paid for building permits, sewerage and water charges and zoning appeal costs, totaling $624.00, and he paid an engineering firm $563.38 for test borings and plot plans; in addition, his services were worth $7,500; the Mavrelises have not conveyed the land to Fountain Plaza, Inc., and have deeded it to another corporation which they control; the Bravermans have not provided financing; and Mangione has not been repaid the $10,365.84 of his money which he expended for the account of the venture in reliance on the agreement for the joint venture and for repayment or paid anything for his expert services.

The special count of the declaration sought relief on the basis of an express oral contract, a fundamental part of which was a promise to convey real property. Recovery could not be had at law for breach of the contract because of the bar of the Statute of Frauds, the promise to convey not being in writing and the doctrine of part performance being inapplicable in a suit at law. Stevens v. Bennett, Md., 199 A.2d 221; Cline v. Fountain Rock Lime & Brick Co., Inc., 210 Md. 78, 122 A.2d 449; Hamilton v. Thirston, 93 Md. 213, 48 A. 709.

Despite this, one who has performed to the extent that he could, under the circumstances, under a contract unenforceable because of the Statute of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • ALTERNATIVES v. SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 3, 2004
    ...252 Md. 133, 135-36, 249 A.2d 177 (1969); Duck v. Quality Custom Homes, Inc., 242 Md. 609, 220 A.2d 143 (1966); Mangione v. Braverman, 234 Md. 357, 360-61, 199 A.2d 225 (1964); Stevens v. Bennett, 234 Md. 348, 199 A.2d 221 (1964); Hirsch v. Yaker, 226 Md. 580, 582, 174 A.2d 728 (1961); Petr......
  • Mogavero v. Silverstein
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 30, 2002
    ...by virtue of the Statute of Frauds. In those cases, an implied-in-fact measure of damages has been utilized. See Mangione v. Braverman, 234 Md. 357, 360-61, 199 A.2d 225 (1964). In Mangione, the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with defendants, under which plaintiff was to build an ......
  • Campbell v. Welsh
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 9, 1983
    ...same to be an equitable lien upon the property." See also Stevens v. Bennett, 234 Md. 348, 352, 199 A.2d 221 (1964); Mangione v. Braverman, 234 Md. 357, 199 A.2d 225 (1964); Boehm v. Boehm, 182 Md. 254, 34 A.2d 447 (1943); Duck v. Quality Custom Homes, 242 Md. 609, 220 A.2d 143 (1966), perm......
  • Rosenbloom v. Feiler
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1981
    ...include: Blumenthal v. Heron, 261 Md. 234, 274 A.2d 636 (1971); Kline v. Lightman, 243 Md. 460, 221 A.2d 675 (1966); Mangione v. Braverman, 234 Md. 357, 199 A.2d 225 (1964); Kerner v. Eastern Dispensary and Cas. Hospital, 214 Md. 375, 135 A.2d 303 (1957); Strohecker v. Schumacher & Seiler, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT