Miller v. Herrmann
| Decision Date | 07 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 184,184 |
| Citation | 187 A.2d 847,230 Md. 590 |
| Parties | Charles M. MILLER et ux. v. Omer W. HERRMANN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Frank P. Flury, Riverdale (Donald P. McLaughlin, Riverdale, on the brief), for appellants.
James G. Hollis, Bethesda (William L. Kahler and DeBlasis & Kahler, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellants, Charles M. Miller and Roberta C. Miller, his wife, who sold a piece of ground improved by a building to the appellee, Omer W. Herrmann, resisted a suit against them for specific performance on the grounds (a) that Mr. Miller, at the time he signed the contract of sale, lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequence of his act, and (b) that the agent of the appellants delivered the contract to the purchaser after she had been notified not to do so. The chancellor found that Mr. Miller knew precisely what he was doing and that the contract had become binding before the Millers changed their minds and inquired whether it would be possible to reclaim it, and decreed specific performance.
In this Court the sellers claim the chancellor erred in refusing to permit lay witnesses to state they thought Mr. Miller was incompetent when he signed the contract and that the act of their agent in delivering the contract constituted such a gross injustice to them 'that a court of equity should not lend its dignity to the transaction by ordering the extraordinary, and, in this case, the harsh remedy of specific performance.'
The Millers owned and lived in a one story building, apparently designed as a salesroom for souvenirs and for the exhibition of animals, on a five-acre tract of land adjacent to Route 301. Mrs. Smith, a real estate saleswoman who had learned from Mr. Miller in the late summer that he and his wife were on the verge of separation and that they wanted to sell their property, went to the hospital with Mrs. Miller to see Mr. Miller who had been operated on for the repair of a leg muscle which had torn from a bone in the knee. The Millers, Mrs. Miller's parents, who held a mortgage on the property, and Mrs. Smith talked over the problems incident to a sale--whether the property should be sold 'as a commercial property or as a residence' and whether they should undertake to have it zoned or sell it subject to rezoning. Mr. Miller had thought that the sales price should be $12,000; but after further consideration of the sales commission that would be payable, it was decided to ask $18,000. Mrs. Smith then was given an exclusive, written listing. The next day Mrs. Miller called her to inquire whether they should reserve an acre at the corner of the lot for themselves and sell the rest. Then she said they concluded that the value of the acre was such its deletion from the sale would reduce the sales price so much they had better leave the listing as it was and sell all the property.
On November 13, 1960, Mr. Herrmann, the appellee, signed a contract to buy the property for $14,000 in cash, $1,000 being paid as a deposit, and the balance to be paid at settlement 'within 30 days from the date of acceptance' by the owner. Mrs. Smith took the contract to the Millers. Again her parents were present, and the matter was discussed around the dining room table. Mrs. Smith pointed out that the sale was for cash with quick settlement. Mr. Miller read over the contract and, when asked by Mrs. Smith if he had any questions about it, replied, according to her, 'Well, it is very clear * * * the price is fourteen thousand dollars; we settle in thirty days; your commission is ten per cent.' He signed the contract and tossed it across the table to Mrs. Miller and told her to sign.
When Mr. Herrmann signed the contract, the word 'none' had been written in on it opposite the printed language 'Property to be sold subject to an existing tenancy as follows.' This would have meant that the Millers would have to move just before Christmas, so, at Mrs. Smith's suggestion, the word 'none' was stricken out and the words '60 days or sooner' were written in. The Millers put their initials opposite these words. Mrs. Smith told the Millers that from what she had been told, she was sure that the change would be agreeable to Mr. Herrmann.
Mrs. Smith left with the contract, and an hour or so later called Mr. Crandall, the real estate agent whose prospect Mr. Herrmann was, to tell him that it, with the minor change, had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McCross v. Ratnakar Shipping Co.
-
Beall v. Beall
...to contain all the elements of a valid contract. London v. Riebel, 189 Md. 376, 379, 56 A.2d 34 (1947). See Miller v. Herrmann, 230 Md. 590, 595-96, 187 A.2d 847 (1963 ). The chancellor below observed, and we agree, that reference to the various agreements between the parties readily provid......
-
Norkunas v. Cochran, 0094, September Term, 2005.
...was made" when seller's broker called buyer and told him seller had signed the contract offer as submitted); Miller v. Herrmann, 230 Md. 590, 595, 187 A.2d 847 (1963) (contract was binding, and counter-offerors could not withdraw, after counter-offeree communicated by telephone that the "un......
-
Austin v. Montgomery
...Cir. 1950); Moss v. Cogle, 267 Ala. 208, 101 So.2d 314 (1958); Sewell v. Dolby, 171 Kan. 640, 237 P.2d 366 (1951); Miller v. Herrmann, 230 Md. 590, 187 A.2d 847 (1963); Ford v. Culbertson, 158 Tex. 124, 308 S.W.2d 855 We are of the opinion that the evidence amply supports the chancellor's f......