Porcelain Enamel & Mfg. Co. of Baltimore v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 36.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtBOND, Chief Judge
Citation11 A.2d 451
Docket NumberNo. 36.,36.
Decision Date05 March 1940
11 A.2d 451


No. 36.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 5, 1940.

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge.

Proceeding for declaratory judgment by the Porcelain Enamel & Manufacturing Company of Baltimore, a body corporate, against the Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, a body corporate, and another. A demurrer interposed by the named defendant was sustained and from a judgment for the named defendant, plaintiff appeals.



F. Gray Goudy, of Baltimore, for appellant.

R. E. Lee Marshall, of Baltimore (Marshall & Carey, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

BOND, Chief Judge.

The appeal is from a judgment on demurrer to an application to a court of law for a declaratory judgment under the Act of 1939, chapter 294, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, to determine which of two contractors with the plaintiff for construction work caused delay for which the plaintiff may claim damages, or whether both did. The two contractors were made defendants, but only one, the Jeffrey Company demurred; the other, Dietrich Brothers, Incorporated, answered. The chancellor in the case concluded that the suit could not be maintained at law, and sustained the demurrer; and judgment for the defendant followed.

11 A.2d 452

The application, entitled a bill of complaint, alleges that the Jeffrey Company entered into a written contract with the Porcelain Enameling Company for the erection of machinery and equipment, and Dietrich Brothers entered into another written contract with the same company for the erection of storage bins, both in a manufacturing plant of the plaintiff's in Baltimore; that time was of the essence of each contract, but that by reason of delay of either or both defendants completion of the plant, parts of which they constructed, was delayed beyond a specified limit, causing the plaintiff a heavy total loss as a consequence of inability to carry on its work; that the plaintiff has withheld from both defendants payments of parts of the contract prices, and both are demanding payment; that each defendant blames the other for the delay, and the plaintiff is unable to determine which defendant caused it; and that the plaintiff seeks a judicial determination whether either or both caused it, so that it is entitled to withhold or offset the amount of its loss from one or both. It has also prayed that the contracts be construed and the rights, duties and obligations of the parties be outlined in a declaratory judgment, but the recitals in the application seem to show, and the arguments in the case support the inference,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Perrin, s. 34-37.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 avril 1940
    ...determine the meaning of their enactment. Duncan v. Graham, 155 Md. 507, 510, 142 A. 593; Porcelain Enameling Co. v. Jeffrey Co., Md., 11 A.2d 451. The taxes are owing, of course, when there exists an obligation for their payment. In a suit in assumpsit by the city for real and personal tax......
  • Davis v. State, 26.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 13 juin 1944
    ...take the place of the ordinary action for damages for breach of contract. Porcelain Enamel & Mfg. Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 177 Md. 677, 11 A.2d 451. Likewise, we held that the Circuit Court cannot decide by declaratory judgment whether a will should be probated, for the Orphans' Court is ve......
  • Polakoff v. Hampton, 2471 September Term, 2001.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 7 novembre 2002
    ...Act first was enacted in Maryland by 1939 Md. Laws ch.294, the Court held in Porcelain Enamel & Mfg. Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 177 Md. 677, 11 A.2d 451 (1940), that a declaratory judgment was not an appropriate procedure when the parties had a cause of action at law or in equity that was ade......
  • Caroline St. Permanent Bldg. Ass'n No. I of Baltimore City v. Sohn, 45.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 12 juin 1940
    ...and not to supersede effective ordinary actions at law or suits in equity. Porcelain Enamel, etc, Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., Md, 1940, 11 A.2d 451; James v. Alderton Dock Yards, 256 N.Y. 298, 176 N.E. 401; In re Cryan's Estate, 301 Pa. 386, 152 A. 675, 677, 71 A.L.R. 1417; Heller v. Shapiro, ......
  • 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