Snodgrass v. Stubbs

Decision Date10 February 1949
Docket Number79.
Citation64 A.2d 130,192 Md. 287
PartiesSNODGRASS v. STUBBS et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harford County; Frederick Lee Cobourn Judge.

Suit in equity by I. Dale Snodgrass against Donald S. Stubbs and Mabel S. Stubbs to recover one third of the rents and profits accruing from defendants' farm which the plaintiff had managed. From a decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

A Frederick Taylor, of Baltimore (Samuel K. Dennis and Harry W Allers, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Edward H. Burke, of Baltimore (Michael Paul Smith and Bowie, Burke & Leonard, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.



This is the second suit in equity instituted by I. Dale Snodgrass against Donald S. Stubbs and Mabel S. Stubbs, his wife residents of Harford County, to recover a share in the profits from the operation of their farm situated near Cockeysville in Baltimore County.

In 1938 Stubbs and his wife purchased the farm from the University of Maryland for $40,000, and made Snodgrass the manager. The operations on the farm, in addition to the raising of crops, included dairying and canning. In September, 1939, when it appeared that the owners might lose the property unless it was financed, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation authorized a loan of $35,000 upon condition that Snodgrass would put $5,000 as capital in the business. Snodgrass arranged to loan this amount, and on October 6, 1939, an agreement was entered into wherein Stubbs and wife agreed that after the loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other debts had been paid out of the income from the operation of the dairy and the mushroom business, they would convey to Snodgrass a one-third interest in the farm and mushroom business. After a period of adversity, the farm, known as 'Mushroom City,' became a success.

In his first suit, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in 1945, Snodgrass alleged that he was entitled to one-third interest in the farm and the stock and equipment thereon, and one-third of the net profits from the dairy and cannery. He prayed for an injunction against disposition of the farm and its stock and equipment, and for specific performance of the agreement to convey to him a one-third interest in the farm and the businesses thereon, and for the appointment of a trustee to carry out the agreement. The chancellor decided that, when Snodgrass accepted a position with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and ceased to devote all his time to the mushroom business, he forfeited all his rights under the agreement. On July 8, 1947, the Court of Appeals, reversing that decree, held that appellant had performed his obligations under the agreement, and that he was entitled to conveyance of one-third interest in the farm and all the stock and equipment thereon on June 30, 1945; and we remanded the case for the appointment of a trustee to convey to him one-third interest in the farm and one-third interest in the personal property. Snodgrass v. Stubbs, Md., 54 A.2d 338.

On October 22, 1947, the chancellor passed a decree purporting to be in accordance with the mandate. On the same day appellant appealed from the decree because it did not allow him any share of the profits or any compensation for the use of his one-third interest from the time performance was due under the agreement until the time of the passage of the decree. However, on December 18, 1947, appellant, for the sum of $40,000 and other considerations, agreed to sell to Stubbs and wife his interest in the farm and all the property which was on the farm on June 30, 1945, and released all claims against them, except his right to sue them 'for a share of profits of the farm or for the use and occupation thereof from June 30, 1945, to the date of the agreement.'

On December 23, 1947, five days after the parties entered into that agreement, appellant filed the present suit in the Circuit Court for Harford County. He alleged in this case that, in selling his interest in the farm and the personal property thereon, he reserved the right to claim one-third of the profits, but he agreed that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Leake v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 30, 2012
    ...clearly sets forth this argument. This Court is permitted to take judicial notice of pleadings filed in court. See Snodgrass v. Stubbs, 192 Md. 287, 292, 64 A.2d 130 (1949) (“no question, of course, that the Court of Appeals takes judicial notice of the records and all other papers properly......
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, s. 513
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 11, 1980
    ...a different form or is based on a different cause of action. Sterling v. Local 438, etc., 207 Md. 132, 113 A.2d 389; Snodgrass v. Stubbs, 192 Md. 287, 64 A.2d 130; De Maio v. Lumbermens Mutual, 247 Md. 30, 230 A.2d 279." Pat Perusse Realty v. Lingo, 249 Md. 33, 35, 238 A.2d 100, 102 (1968) ......

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