Scarlett v. Stein
| Decision Date | 24 June 1874 |
| Citation | 40 Md. 512 |
| Parties | WILLIAM G. SCARLETT v. SAMUEL STEIN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover the purchase money of a parcel of land agreed to be purchased by the defendant. Among other defences the defendant pleaded a fraudulent misrepresentation by the plaintiff in regard to the value of the land.
First Exception.--At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the following writings, A. and B., the signaturet to which were admitted to be genuine:
And also the following admission in writing:
The plaintiff then offered in evidence a plat of Stein's Addition to Galesville, alleging that he had exhibited said plat to the defendant at the time of the contract of sale of the lots, and that the lots, No. 1 to 24, as shown on said plat, were those referred to in the contract. The defendant objected to the said plat as evidence, and the oral testimony of the plaintiff, connecting said plat with the contract.
But the Court, (DOBBIN, J.,) overruled the same, and allowed the plat and the evidence of the witness to go to the jury, for the purpose of identifying the lots mentioned in the contract, and for the purpose of identifying their size and location. The defendant excepted.
Second Exception.--After the testimony contained in the first bill of exceptions had been submitted, at the opening of the Court, the following day, the plaintiff, as witness, produced a plat purporting to have been made by the surveyor Martinet, and offered said plat in evidence, alleging that he had made a mistake in regard to the former plat, and that said plat was not the plat taken by him to the defendant at the time of the contract (June 22nd,) but that the plat now offered was such plat, so exhibited by him to the defendant. The plat produced by the witness on the first day, was a lithographic plat, and that produced at this time was the original written plat of Martinet, surveyor, from which the lithographic copies had been made.
Witness explained that he was under the impression, the first day, that the lithographic copies had been made, and one of them exhibited to the defendant when their contract was made. On reflection, however, he was satisfied he had made a mistake, and that the plat exhibited was the original plat of Martinet. The defendant objected to the admission of the plat in evidence for the purpose of defining and designating the lots mentioned in the contract; and also objected to the oral evidence of the plaintiff, that he exhibited such plat to the defendant at the time of the sale, and that the lots sold were the same designated on said plat. But the Court admitted the plat and the evidence of the plaintiff to the jury. Whereupon, the defendant excepted.
Third Exception.--After the evidence submitted by the plaintiff as contained in the first and second bills of exception, the defendant testified as follows: That a week or two before the 22nd of June, 1869, the plaintiff came into the defendant's place of business and stated to defendant that he had made an operation in which he would like to have defendant interested, and proposed to put defendant in said operation on the ground floor with himself, due allowance being made for such expenses as plaintiff might have incurred, the operation related to the property at Galesville, mentioned in this case, that when plaintiff should be ready to act upon the question, he would let defendant know. He then and there gave assurances to defendant, that the operation would be entirely satisfactory and beneficial to both parties. That his only object in taking defendant into the matter, was the good feeling he had for defendant, acquired by long acquaintance and friendship. He called on the 22nd of June, 1869, when he stated to defendant that he could then close the transaction, and mentioned what the operation was; that he had purchased a lot of ground at Galesville, Md., a fine location, susceptible of improvement; that Galesville was destined to be a considerable place; that defendant replied, that he had never been there, knew there was such a place, and that was all; that of the worth or value of land there, he knew nothing whatever; that he had confidence in the judgment and friendship of plaintiff, and that if he assured him that his representations were true, and that plaintiff would put him on an equal footing with himself, making due allowance for expenses, defendant was satisfied to take a moderate share of the operation with him, to which plaintiff assented, and thereupon, he paid plaintiff $100, and signed the paper offered in evidence; that he remained without further information for some months, when somebody came into his office, of whom he made enquiries as to the value of property in Galesville, and the information obtained satisfied him that a fraud had been practiced upon him by the plaintiff; that he afterwards went to see the plaintiff at his house, and told him that he wished to withdraw; that the statements made to him by plaintiff, were entirely false; that his representations were not true; (this interview was in the month of April, 1870;) defendant then offered to the plaintiff to give up and lose the $100, which he had paid him, told the plaintiff he was willing to pay that for the experience which he had had with him; the plaintiff declined to accede; witness then told him that he did not consider the property his, in any shape or form; that he considered himself wronged; there was some talk between us at that interview about my giving the plaintiff a ground-rent on German street; I asked the plaintiff what he would be willing to take that ground-rent at on account; this occurred in the first part of the interview, and witness explained that he did this to test the plaintiff; apparently, he was willing to take the ground-rent; he said I could put it in at what I thought it was worth; witness then asked the plaintiff what he had paid for the property, and he said $100 per acre; it was at the rate of about $1,350 per acre that he sold to witness; plaintiff called on the defendant several times for payment between October and January, 1870, but defendant always put him off, having got an inkling that all was not right. The witness being asked on cross-examination if he did not, for the first time, intimate to Mr. Stein, that he would have nothing more to do with the property, by a letter written some time after the interview of witness at the house of Stein, witness answered, that he did not recollect having written a letter.
Plaintiff then produced the following letter:
Dear Sir:--On consultation with my counsel and friends, I have determined not to have anything more to do with that "Galesville" property of yours, as the representations made by you were totally incorrect and deceptive, which can be fully demonstrated when necessary.
Witness acknowledged the letter, but said he had forgotten it. He stated that he went to the house of Stein and had the interview spoken of, for the purpose of getting released; that he made no offer of the ground-rent; that it was only talked about; the object was to get released; it was a sub-ground-rent of $42 or $52, worth $800, or $900; that he then told Stein he would have nothing more to do with it; witness cannot say positively whether the letter was written before or after the interview, having forgotten the letter entirely; witness said the allegations contained in the letter were true; that he relied entirely on the representations of Stein.
The plaintiff then offered himself as a witness, and testified That he attended the sale at Galesville, and became the purchaser of the property; that the sale and the amount he had paid were reported in the Baltimore papers; that a short time subsequently he met Mr. Scarlett, who remarked to him, "I see that you have made a purchase of Galesville;" witness replied, yes, that he intended to lay it out in lots, and that he would show him the plat when it was completed; Scarlett, himself, was the first to speak of purchasing, and witness said he would show him the plat as soon as he had laid off the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips Roofing Co., Inc. v. Maryland Broadcasting Co.
...142 A. 522; American Medicinal Spirits Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 165 Md. 128, 166 A. 407. In the case of Scarlett v. Stein, 40 Md. 512, at page 525, this Court, speaking through Judge Robinson, 'Whether time is to be considered as of the essence of the contract must, of cour......
-
Livingston v. Green Properties, Inc.
...550; Parker v. Parmele, 20 Johns., N.Y., 130; Rasst v. Morris, supra, at page 261 of 135 Md., at page 793 of 108 A. Compare Scarlett v. Stein, 40 Md. 512, 528. Many cases are collected in an annotation in 35 A.L.R. 108. Cases particularly applicable here will be found at pages 109, 112 and ......
-
Vincenti v. Kammer
...of the contract. In Phillips Roofing Co., Inc. v. Maryland Broadcasting Co., 184 Md. 187, 40 A.2d 298, 301, we quoted from Scarlett v. Stein, 40 Md. 512, follows: "Whether time is to be considered as of the essence of the contract must, of course, depend upon the intention of the parties. W......
-
Jaeger v. Shea
... ... purpose for which the sale was contracted. Acme Building ... Co. v. Mitchell, 99 A. 545; Diamond v. Shriver, ... 114 Md. 648, 80 A. 217; Scarlett v. Stein, 40 Md ... 512; Gilman v. Smith, 71 Md. 173, 17 A. 1035; ... Copp v. De Ronceray, 82 Md. 39, 33 A. 432; ... Maughlin v. Perry, 35 Md ... ...