Alco Construction Co. v. Peachwood Development Corp.

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1963 appellant Aleo Construction Company, Inc. contracted to purchase certain lots in a Montgomery County real estate development from appellee Peachwood Development Corporation. Peachwood at the time was beneficiary of a commitment by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission to extend water and sewer lines to the development, and had agreed to contribute to the construction costs of this extension. The contract of sale between appellee and Aleo provided that if the required contribution to the Commission exceeded $12,000 the seller should notify the purchaser and “should no satisfactory solution be reached” (presumably as to their respective shares of the contribution) the contract would be void.

Ultimately the required contribution was fixed at $21,500. The parties executed an agreement on April 8,1964, which provided that Peachwood would “turn over to purchaser all engineering data which is presently held by Thomas Oyster and Associates, and obtain from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission an assignment of the sewer commitment to purchaser.” As further agreed a check for $21,500 was mailed to the Sanitary Commission by Conroy and Williams, the parties’ settlement attorneys, with Peachwood contributing $16,-500 of this amount and Aleo $5,000. ²⁷¹ The Sanitary Commission required that for an extension commitment to be transferred, the Commission must receive requests to that effect from both the transferor and the transferee. In compliance with this rule both Aleo and Peachwood by letters to the Commission requested a transfer. In its letter Peachwood asked that the monies contributed be returned to the original donors if the sewer construction were not undertaken.

The Commission on June 8, 1965, wrote to Aleo stating the commitment had been transferred to them, and further “ [s]hould the project for any reason fail to materialize the . . . contribution will be refunded to the original contributor.” The planned extension was ultimately cancelled, and Aleo claimed refund of the entire $21,500 asserting that the agreement of April 8 for transfer of the sewer commitment was intended as well to transfer the incidental benefits including the funds. Appellee Peachwood claimed the $16,500 it had originally contributed. As a result of these conflicting claims the Sanitary Commission instituted interpleader proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. In the further course of the litigation Peachwood was designated the plaintiff and Aleo the defendant.

The chancellor (Levine, J.) determined after a hearing that $16,500 should be refunded to Peach-wood and $5,000 to Aleo. On appeal pursuing its claim to the entire amount Aleo submits two grounds for reversal. They first contend the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the following exchange on direct examination: By Mr. McDonald, counsel for the plaintiff: “Q. And, incidental to your transmitting to the sanitary commission this sum of twenty-one thousand five hundred dollars, were you acting at that time as the agent for Peachwood Development Corporation, as far as sixteen thousand five hundred dollars of that amount was concerned ?” ²⁷² Mr. DeLeon, a witness called by the plaintiff: “Yes.” Appellant says this leading question and answer was a vital factor in the trial judge’s decision on the merits of the case because he specifically