Allen v. Lambden

Tuck, J, delivered the opinion of the court. The appellee sued the appellant in covenant on the following instrument, which, it is admitted, was signed and sealed by Benjamin and Allen, and which, it is also admitted, was not stamped. It does not appear to have been executed by the appellee: “Memorandum of articles of agreement entered into this eighth day of October, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, between Ann Lambden, of the city of Annapolis, State of Maryland, of the one part, and John L. Benjamin, of Anne Arundel county, of the other part: The said Ann Lambden hereby agrees to rent to John L. Benjamin, the tavern house in the city of Annapolis, known as the Western Hotel, also the private dwelling and kitchen attached to the tavern, also the garden and yard, with the privilege of using the water from the pump standing in the yard, occupied by Mr. Edward Duvall, for one year, for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, said John L. Benjamin agreeing to give a security for the payment of the rent, and to pay the rent as follows: one-fourth of the rent every three months, the year commencing on the eighteenth day of October, and ending with the ²⁸² seventeenth day of October 1849; this article' also witnesseth, that James W. Allen agrees to be John L. Benjamin’s surety for the payment of the rent, according to the above stipulation, as -witness the hands and seals of the parties hereunto set, this eighteenth day of October, eighteen hundred and forty-eight. John L. Benjamin, ( Seal.) James W. Allen, ( Seal.)” The only question for our consideration is, whether this paper was admissible in evidence?

It is insisted on the part of the appellant, that this cause of action is a bond or obligation for the payment of money, and required to be stamped by the acts of 1844, ch. 280, and 1845, ch. 193. On the part of the appellee, however, it is contended, that this is a lease reserving rent and not necessary to be stamped, upon the authority of the case oí Burton, et al., vs. State, 3 Gill, 1 . Whatever may be thought of this instrument, as between the appellee and Benjamin, we do not consider it a lease as between her and the appellant. A lease imports a contract between lessor and lessee for the possession and profits of lands, &c., on the one side, and a recompense by rent or other consideration, on the other. 5 Bac.

Abr. Lease, 433, 601, K., Ed. 1844. Arclib. Landlord and Tenant, 53 Law Lib., 1, 45.

Conceding that the appellee can be considered a