Washington, B. & A. R. Co. v. Moss
| Decision Date | 04 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | 17. |
| Citation | 96 A. 273,127 Md. 12 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON, B. & A. R. CO. et al. v. MOSS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Howard County; Wm. Henry Forsythe, Jr. Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by William H. Moss against the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with leave to amend the declaration.
George Weems Williams and Edward M. Hammond, both of Baltimore (L Vernon Miller, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants. Nicholas H. Green, of Annapolis, for appellee.
In this case the appellee brought suit against three public service corporations, the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railroad Company, the Annapolis Public Utilities Company, and the Annapolis Gas & Electric Light Company, for breach of an alleged verbal contract and declared on said contract. Before the conclusion of the trial the declaration was amended by striking out the Annapolis Gas & Electric Light Company as a defendant, and a verdict was found by the trial jury in favor of the appellee and against the two defendants, and from the judgment accordingly entered this appeal was taken.
The declaration, which contains but one count, avers that the appellee, on the 1st day of February, 1913, was and had been for a number of years prior thereto, engaged in a general retail grocery business in Annapolis, with a store located at 112 College avenue, which yielded an income sufficient for the support of himself and family, and in addition was an agent of the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railroad Company, yielding a salary and other privileges, and occupied as a dwelling the property adjoining his said store in which he conducted a successful boarding house, yielding a good return; that while he was engaged in business as aforesaid, the defendant the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railroad Company and the Annapolis Public Utilities Company purchased the Annapolis Gas & Electric Light Company, and, desiring a more central location for a substation for the defendant the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad Company, selected the site of the plaintiff's place of business, and his dwelling as a desirable position, "and thereupon the defendants agreed and contracted with the plaintiff that, upon his securing an option for the purchase of the property, so as aforesaid occupied by him, or a lease of the same, a surrender of his tenancy thereof and the closing out of his business conducted therein and thereon, to give him employment with the defendants, and in the remodeling and reconstruction of the property to provide a store for the said plaintiff, and allow him the privilege of conducting therein a lunchroom and a store for the sale of such articles as are usually sold in places of like character, including tobacco, cigars, candy, and ice cream, and the occupancy of the adjoining dwelling;" that, acting upon the good faith of said agreement and contract, the plaintiff carried out in every particular his part of the contract, but that the defendants, disregarding the said agreement, failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to give the plaintiff employment, and refuse to provide a store and lunchroom for him and to allow him the privilege of sale on the premises as aforesaid.
The proof offered in support of the issues joined upon the filing of the general issue pleas was substantially as follows: The plaintiff conducted a store at the corner of College avenue and Bladen street in Annapolis, and resided in the house adjoining the store; that he sold tickets for the defendant, the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad Company, for a monthly salary of $5, and the privilege of a pass on the defendant company's road, and, in addition to these occupations, conducted a boarding house in his dwelling. The corner on which his business was located was directly across the street from property which was owned by the Annapolis Short Line Railroad and the houses and buildings on which were about to be torn down so as to make a small park leading from College avenue to the station of the Annapolis Short Line Railroad. The Short Line is the rival transportation line of the appellant, the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad. The property occupied by the appellee was owned by his wife's aunt, and had been occupied by him since 1899. It happened that Mr. Robert Moss, the counsel of the appellants, was also the brother of the appellee. The appellee went to his brother and sought to have him interest the officials of the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad Company in the advantages to be gained by it in securing the property occupied by him and converting it into a regular station and waiting room.
Mr. Robert Moss testified that, bearing in mind the request of his brother, he took up the proposition with Mr. Bishop, the president of the appellant companies, and other officials upon their next visit to Annapolis. "I told him, Mr. Bishop, about the property, and told him that my brother had the property, but that he would give it up under certain conditions, and I suggested that we go down and look at the property." He and Mr. Bishop went down and stood across the street from the property. Mr. Bishop wished to know what the property rented for, and asked witness to find out. The witness went across and found out from his brother and continued:
The appellee testified: That he went to the office of Robert Moss and met the officials and was sent to Baltimore to try to purchase the property. That his aunt would not sell the property, but on his second visit she said she would consider a long-term lease. That after several visits a lease for 10 years, with the privilege of renewal for 10 years, was entered into between his aunt and Robert Moss, and subsequently assigned by Robert Moss to the railroad company. That the entire negotiations for the lease were carried through by the appellee, and for which he has not received any compensation. After the execution of the lease Bishop, the president, Craig, the treasurer, and Doyle, the general manager, of the appellant companies went over and through the properties, and Bishop at that time asked him:
That witness then produced a sketch, or plan, for the reconstruction that he had made, and on the departure of the officials they took the drawing, and it proved the original idea from which the building was built. That on April 21, 1913, the master mechanic of the railroad company came to his store and told him they were ready to proceed with the work. Thereupon the appellee moved what little merchandise he had left into the dwelling house and turned the store building over to them; and on the same day they commenced to tear down the building and erected upon the store lot the present two-story building, now used as a station. He further testified that in the reconstruction they were not making any place for him, and he wrote the following letter to Doyle, to which he received no reply:
To continue reading
Request your trial