Baldwin v. Francis
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a decree of the Court below sustaining a demurrer and dismissing, the bill of complaint of the appellants. It appears from the allegations of the bill that Robert E. Geddes, who was the owner of certain real estate in Baltimore county, Maryland, subject to a mortgage executed by him and his wife in favor of Lucretia C. Manning, dated February 4th, 1905,- and recorded among the Mortgage Records of Baltimore county, sometime in the year 1909 erected on said 179 property a building known as the “Relay Casino,” and placed therein four bowling alleys which he obtained from the Brunswiek-Balke-Collender Company under a contract or lease executed by him and the said company on the 25th day of June, 1909, by which, in consideration of the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, five hundred dollars of which was to be paid cash, and the balance to he secured by ten notes of one hundred dollars each, the said company leased to him the howling alleys for a period of ten months. The lease provided that upon failure of Geddes to pay the notes when due, the company should have the right to take possession of the alleys and to have the same as though the lease or contract had not been executed, and also provided that upon payment of all the notes according to the terms thereof the company would convey the howling alleys to Geddes by a hill of sale.
On the 29th of June, 1910, Geddes and his wife executed to the Sherwood Distilling Company of Baltimore City a mortgage on said real estate to secure the payment of $14,-294.10. In February, 1911, the property described in said mortgage to I/ucrefia C. Manning was sold under the power of sale contained therein for the sum of $7,800.00 to Jay F. Tower, who, the hill alleges, purchased the same for the Sherwood Distilling Company, and who-, by direction of said company, afterwards sold and conveyed it to the appellants, Joseph. A. Baldwin and Belle A. Baldwin, his wife, by deed dated the 26th day of May, 1911, and duly recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore county. The hill also alleges that after the property had been sold to Baldwin and his wife, he received notice from the defendant (appellee) that he claimed the bowling alleys referred to in said lease or contract, and that the plaintiff (appellant) Joseph A. Baldwin, learned from him that he based his claim upon said lease and an assignment thereof to him, dated January 27th, 1911, which lease and assignment were recorded among the Chattel Records of Baltimore county.
The hill then avers that said pretended lease was intended 180 as a conveyance of .the bowling alleys therein referred to to Geddes, and was resorted to as a means of securing the payment of the ten notes, for one hundred dollars each, given for part .of the consideration for the sale; that it was in legal effect a mortgage, and that at the time it was assigned to the defendant there was due from the said Robert E. Geddes, under the terms thereof, $160.00, and that the consideration for the assignment did not exceed the sum of $150.00. It is further averred that the howling alleys were securely nailed to the floor of said building in which they were located, and cannot be taken out of said building without very substantial damage to the building and to the alleys; that, as purchasers of the real estate “to which the bowling alleys were affixed,” the plaintiffs, Joseph A. Baldwin and his wife, are entitled to redeem said lease by payment of the amount due thereunder by Gedides, and that to that end and for that purpose the plaintiffs offered the defendant the sum of $160.00, with interest thereon from February 25th, 1910, and the costs in the suit in trover for the conversion of said bowling alleys, instituted by the appellee against the appellants in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City. The prayer of the bill is that the plaintiffs be allowed to redeem the lease from the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company to Geddes, upon payment to the defendant of the sum of $160.00, with interest from the 25th day of February, 1910, and'the costs in'the suit of the defendant against the plaintiffs for the conversion of said alleys, and that upon the payment of said sum the defendant be required to execute to the plaintiffs a bill of sale for said alleys, and that the defendant, his agents, etc., be enjoined from prosecuting said action of trover against the appellants, and for general relief. Counsel for the appellants earnestly contend that, but for the effect of the agreement between Geddes and the Burns-wick-Balke-Collender Company,' the bowling alleys became a part of the building in 'which they ■ were located, and were subject to the lien of the mortgage in favor of Lucretia C. 181 Manning.
If this is so then the appellants, Joseph A. Baldwin and his wife, acquired title to them by virtue of the sale under said mortgage, and the deed to the
This is a preview of Baldwin v. Francis. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.