Sinclair Estates, Inc. v. Charles R. Guthrie Co., 72

• Decision Date: 09 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 72,72
• Citation: 223 Md. 572,165 A.2d 775
• Parties: SINCLAIR ESTATES, INC. v. CHARLES R. GUTHRIE CO., Inc. CHARLES R. GUTHRIE CO., Inc. v. SINCLAIR ESTATES, INC.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 572

223 Md. 572

165 A.2d 775

SINCLAIR ESTATES, INC. v. CHARLES R. GUTHRIE CO., Inc.

CHARLES R. GUTHRIE CO., Inc. v. SINCLAIR ESTATES, INC.

No. 72.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 9, 1960.

Julius G. Maurer and Delverne A. Dressel, Baltimore, for appellant.

Mitchell Stevan, Baltimore, for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On the original appeal, the developer-appellant (Sinclair) contends that it was reversible error to exclude testimony with respect to an alleged oral agreement made by the attorney of the contractor-appellee (Guthrie) with the developer during the course of negotiations between them as to the payment of an unpaid requisition for work performed under the contract between the parties for the construction of sewer lines in a residential development.

On the cross-appeal, the contractor-cross-appellant contends that it should not have been required to pay one-half of the master's fee and stenographic expenses.

While construction of the project had gone forward satisfactorily for several months, it virtually came to a standstill whem running sand and water were encountered in a swampy area. The result was dissatisfaction on the part of both parties. The developer declined to make further payments under the contract. The contractor, in turn, refused to proceed further with the work, and filed a mechanics' lien and a suit at law to recover damages for breach of contract. The developer, besides filing pleas in bar and a counter-claim for damages for breach of contract in the law case, also filed a suit in equity involving the same or similar issues. The suits were consolidated for trial, and when the detailed nature of the proceedings became apparent, the cases were referred to a master for the purpose of taking testimony and making a report and recommendations to the court. During the course of that hearing each of the parties waived its respective claim for damages under contract items one and two (secondary sewer lines), and the master at the conclusion of the hearing recommended the entry of a judgment for $8,949.50 in favor of Guthrie against Sinclair under item one (main sewer line), with interest from a specified date and costs in all of the law and equity suits.

In its exceptions to the report of the master, Sinclair set forth numerous specific reasons as to why the recommendation of the master should not be adopted as well as the general one of 'other reasons' to be assigned at the hearing, but made no mention therein of the only claim it asserted on this appeal with respect to an alleged improper exclusion of testimony at the hearing...