Buckner v. Jones

Offutt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1919 Stanley Jones and Eliza, his wife, colored, were living in Baltimore. Stanley, who was employed as a truck driver by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, was also_ a minister of the gospel, and to- augment his earnings occasionally conducted religious services as time and occasion permitted, and Eliza, his wife, contributed to the family exchequer her earnings as a domestic servant. They were a simple, unsophisticated, couple, absorbed in their own small problems and ambitions and wholly unconscious of any necessity for caution in dealing with strangers in business affairs.

Stanley, although he was a minister of the gospel, had no church in which to preach it, and one of their ambitions was to secure some building in which he might conduct religious services, and in furtherance of that hope they were looking for a house which could be used both as a church and a dwelling. With that end in mind, on March ⁶⁸¹ 5th, 1919, at the suggestion of John Edwards, a member and a deacon pro tem. of Stanley’s congregation, Stanley approached Louis Buckner, a real estate operator who owned a number of houses in Baltimore City, to learn whether he had such a house as they wanted. Buckner had for many years been engaged in buying, selling, and dealing in real estate, apparently as his principal occupation, and the impression left by his testimony is that he is a shrewd, capable, and experienced business man, thoroughly familiar with the technique of the real estate business. As a result of his interview with Buckner, Jones and his wife occupied a house known, as.

Eo. 405 South Bond Street in Baltimore City, which was subject to a ground rent of $30.37, and which had been purchased for $2,500 in 1918 and conveyed to Louis Buckner’s son, Alexander A. Buckner, and Elsya, his wife, and which at the time of the interview stood in their names, as indeed it still does. The terms upon which they occupied the property constitute the issue in this case. Jones and his wife, the appellants, assert that they entered it under a parol agreement of purchase which provided that it was to be sold to them for $5,000, payable in monthly instalments, and that upon the payment of that sum with accrued interest, taxes, and other incidental expenses, it would be granted to them by a proper conveyance. Buckner’s contention, on the other hand, appears to be that they occupied the property as mere monthly tenants, and that he never at any time, either for himself or for his son and daughter-in-law, contracted to sell it .to them.

But whether as tenants or as purchasers, from the time they entered the property in March, 1919, until some time in 1926, Jones and his wife did make monthly payments to the Buckners aggregating, according to their testimony, over $7,000, and according to the appellants’ testimony, $5,982.30. In September, 1926, Jones apparently began to be uneasy about his interest and title to the property, in which he had invested his earnings for so long, and a paper which Louis ⁶⁸² Buckner presented to him at or about that time, to be signed by himself and his wife, confirmed his fears and suspicions. That paper was in the form of a contract for the purchase of the property for $8,000. Jones, to quote from his testimony, “didn’t see nothing that belonged to” him on that paper, and when Buckner said that it was all right, he said, “No, sir, it is all right for you but I don’t see nothing on there for me,” and refused to" sign it.

After that interview, since the appellants definitely refused to recognize any contract for the sale of the property to appellees, they made no further payments on it, and in October, 1926, they filed the original bill of complaint in this case against Alexander A. Buckner' and Elsya, his wife, in Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. .The defendants answered that bill, the case was referred to an auditor for accounting, the parties adduced evidence before the auditor supporting their respective contentions, and the auditor reported to the court that he had found that the complainants had made payments on account of the property aggregating, above all allowances and deductions, $5,337.34. The case was then heard on bill, answer and testimony before the chancellor, who decreed that the defendants had made a valid and enforceable contract for the sale of'the property to. the complainants, but, inasmuch as the auditor had failed to compute interest on the deferred payments, the case was again referred to him for such computation. On February 2nd, 1928, the auditor filed a supplemental account, showing that the complainants had made payments on account of the property aggregating in amount, over all allowances and deductions, including interest on defemed payments, $4,585.62. Exceptions to that account were fled, but were never passed upon except in so far as they were involved in the issues decided at the final hearing of the case.

On October 24th, 1928, the complainants, upoxx their petitioxx, alleging that Louis Buckner was the actual owner of the property at the time the supposed contract for its sale to Stanley and Eliza Jones was made, axxd that Alexander A. Buckner and Elsya, his wife, were mere norni ⁶⁸³ nal owners, were permitted to amend their bill by making Louis Buckner a party defendant. Louis Buckner filed a motion ne recipiaiur to the petition, and the original defendants demurred to the amended bill. Both the motion and the demurrer were overruled and those orders were affirmed on appeal to this court (Buckner v. Jones, 157 Md. 239 ), and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Ibid.

Upon its remand it came on for hearing before the chancellor then presiding in Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, testimony was taken before him, the case was heard, and at the conclusion of the hearing he decreed that the defendants convey to the complainants the Bond Street property subject to the ground rent of $30.37, but otherwise free from all liens except state and city taxes and water rent, “upon payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the sum of $420.83, as set forth in the auditor’s supplemental report filed herein, as corrected by readjustment of interest, said amount being the balance due the defendants by the plaintiffs, on account of the purchase price of the premises No. 405 S. Bond Street, herein mentioned as per the said agreement herein specifically enforced, the defendants having been allowed interest, expenses and expenditures in said auditor’s supplemental report.” This appeal is from that decree. The principal question submitted by it is whether the appellants did in March, 1919, enter into a valid and enforceable contract- for the sale of the Bond Street house to Stanley and Eliza Jones. Subsidiary to that are the further questions: (1) What part of the purchase price remains unpaid? and (2) Did the determination of that question by the chancellor involve the consideration of evidence taken before Louis Buckner was formally a party to the cause ? These questions will be considered in the order in which they have been stated.

The first question is purely one of fact and its determination largely turns upon the weight to be given the testimony of the parties themselves. If, as the appellees alleged, the appellants agreed orally to sell them the property for $5,000, payable in monthly instalments, and they, the appellees, ac ⁶⁸⁴ tually paid on account of the purchase price over $4,500, and were ready, willing, and able to complete the payments, then the appellants did enter into a valid contract for the sale of the property to Jones and his wife, which a court of equity will specifically enforce. Buckner v. Jones, supra. In support of their version of the transaction, the appellees offered the testimony of Stanley Jones, Eliza Jones, and John Edwards, while Louis Buckner, his wife, Mrs. Frances Buckner, and his son, Alexander A. Buckner, testified to the contrary.

The only other witnesses were Charles Greenblatt, a real estate expert offered by the appellees, who testified that the value of the property in November, 1927, was about $3,500, and these witnesses for appellees, Israel Silberstein ■and Mrs. Elizabeth Tarum, whose testimony was wholly immaterial and may be disregarded, and Edward G-eisler, who testified that in the seven years preceding 1926 he had on several occasions made repairs to the Bond Street property for Louis Buckner. So that the material witnesses form two groups, one composed of Stanley and Eliza Jones, interested witnesses and parties to the cause, and John Edwards, their friend, the other composed of Louis and Alexander A. Buckner, both interested parties to the cause, and Mrs. Frances Buckner, the wife of Louis Buckner. Considering the numerical equality of the two groups in valuing their testimony, consideration should be given not only to the significance and effect of the facts to which they testified, but to the opportunities open to the respective witnesses of knowledge of them, as well as to the inherent probability of such facts, in view of the situation of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances. ' In other words, when two witnesses or numerically equal groups of witnesses equally credible give conflicting versions of the same occurrence, the truth of their respective statements, if it is to be decided at all, can only be decided by testing the probable truth of the facts to which they respectively testify by the dictates of common sense, guided by the ordinary experience of men in their relations with each other, and while there are no legal rules, for determining the weight ⁶⁸⁵ of testimony, it naturally takes less testimony to support allegations of fact or conditions which are reasonable and consistent with common knowledge and experience, than where such facts or conditions are unreasonable, improbable, and contrary to the known habits and conduct of men in the ordinary affairs of life. And in valuing the testimony of the witnesses in this case, some effect must be given to its probable truth, when considered in connection with the relative situation and resources of the parties, their experience and apparent intelligence, and the purposes which respectively they were trying to accomplish.

Turning to the facts, it appears that the only persons present at the time Louis Buckner and the appellees agreed upon the terms upon which the latter were to occupy the property were Louis Buckner, John Edwards, and Stanley Jones. Stanley Jones testified that on March oth, 1919, he and Edwards saw Louis Buckner at his home on Baltimore Street, and asked him if he had any houses, and that Buckner said he had, and took them to the Bond Street property, and that they went through an apartment on the second floor of the house occupied at the time by Alexander A. Buckner and his wife, and that Louis Buckner told his daughter-in-law, who was there at the time, that he was going to sell the house, and she said that it was all right; that after that they returned to Buckner’s home, where the following conversation took place: “Q. Did you say anything to Mr. Buckner about buying a house for the church on that occasion? A. We did, Q. What did you say to him and what did he say to you? A. We asked him did he have any houses and he said ‘Yes.5 And then he takened us to the corner of Broadway and Baltimore Street.

So we told him that that would not suit us and then he carried us from there down to 405 South Bond Street. Q. Did you go in the house at 405 South Bond Street with Mr. Buckner? A. We went in the second floor. Q, Did you see Mrs. Louis (obviously intended for Alexander) Buckner, one of the defendants in this case ?

A. She was on the seeond floor, ironing. Q. Ironing? A. Yes, sir. Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Buckner say to her on that occasion ⁶⁸⁶ about selling the house ?

A. He told her that he was going to sell it. Q. What did she say ? A. She said it was all right. * * * Q. Was there any conversation between you and Mr. Buckner after you went back to his house, about selling the Bond Street property? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that conversation? A. He wanted five thousand dollars for it, but Edwards told him that he didn’t have that much money. He said, 'What you got ?’ He said, 'I have got twelve and a half.’ He said 'Get me that then.’ So we had to go on home to get it, and when we came back he said, 'Well, we will take the twelve and a half and you pay me twelve and a half weekly until, well, after three months, one hundred and fifty dollars would be deposited?’ Q. Yes? A. When we came back he said, 'Now, I told you that fifty dollars, but fifty dollars would not cover the expenses on the place, so after three months is out, you pay seventy-five dollars, in order to cover the expenses.’ Q. Hid he tell you what the taxes and the ground rent were ?

A. One hundred dollars for the taxes and thirty dollars for the ground rent. Q. Well, now, did you agree to take the house on those terms? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was buying the house ?

You or your wife and you ? A I and my wife.” •John Edward’s recollection of the interview with Buckner vas to the terms upon which the Jones’s were to occupy the ■property varied somewhat from that of Jones. His testi'.mony as to that was in substance as follows: "Q. My question as, Hid you go with Reverend Jones to see Mr. Louis Buckner ■about the Bond Street property some years ago ? A. Yes, sir. * * * q_ * * * You both saw Mr. Louis Buckner on that occasion?

A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Now, what took place ? What happened ?

What did you say to him and what did he say to you when you and he were there together ? A. He said, WPell, you have come to see me.’ I said, 'Yes.’ 'You have come to get a house,’ he said. I told him yes. He said 'All right.’ All I want then is the money, so we will go down to see about this house. * * * Q. Were there any people living in there when you went down there?

A. Yes, sir. Q. Hid you see Mr. Al’s wife? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was she doing? ⁶⁸⁷ A. She was ironing.

Q. How, did Mr. Louis Buckner say anything to her about selling that house ? A. Yes, sir. And she told him to go ahead and to do what he wanted. Q. Well, first, what did he tell her ?

A. Why, he told her that he was going to sell the house. Q. Yes. And then she said what ? A. She said for him to go ahead and to suit himself. * * * After we got through we went back up to Mr. Buckner’s house again, yes, sir.

Q. Yes. How, was anything said at Mr. Buckner’s house about the price on this property ? A. Sir? Q. Was anything said at Mr. Louis Buckner’s house between yon all about the price that was to be paid for this Bond Street house ?

When you got back up there, I mean ? A. Hot in Mr. Buckner’s house we didn’t say anything about the price, no, sir. But we said outdoors. Q. Outdoors ?

A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. What did Mr. Buckner say to you outdoors about it then ? A. Well, Mr. Buckner said that he would sell him the house for five thousand dollars.

Q. How much ? A. Five thousand dollars. * * * Q. Did he tell you how much the ground rent was, if he did tell you anything at all about it? A. He said that it was one hundred dollars for one, I don’t know which just now, whether it was the ground rent or the taxes. Q. Yes.

And how much for the other ? A. One was thirty and one was a hundred. Q. But you don’t know whether that hundred dollars was taxes or ground rent or the reverse, do yon ? A. Ho. sir.

Q. How I ask you, John,, what if anything was said by Mr. Louis Buckner to th& Beverend Jones about the payments that he was to make on that house. A Well, he said that he wanted one hundred and fifty dollars down and we told him that we didn’t have that much money with ns. We didn’t have it at all. So he says to me, 'Aw, let’s go on home.’ Then he said, 'Well, how much money have you got ?’ We told him that we didn’t have but twelve dollars and he said, 'Well, give me the twelve dollars and we will fix it so that you can make the payments by paying me twenty-five dollars on each payment.’ ” The testimony of T^ouis Buckner as to the transaction was quite different.

He said: “Mr. Jones, and the old gentleman sitting over there with him (apparently referring to Edwards), came to my former home at 1630 East Baltimore ⁶⁸⁸ Street to rent the piece of property at Number 405 South Bond Street. He asked me the rental of it and I told him seventy-five dollars a month. He says that would be more than he can spare for any piece of property. And he wanted to use it for a church downstairs and a dwelling upstairs.

He said that he could not afford to pay .that price. * * * And he looked at the houses and he said that it would be an accommodating proposition to him if he could get that house. * * * 405 South Bond Street. * * * As it is room there that he could rent out and so make his rental be as low as the rental that would be at the corner of Eastern Avenue and Caroline Street. Then he said, then he asked me if I would sell him this property. * * * And so I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘What do you want for it?’ I told him I would take five thousand dollars for it. And he said, ‘Well, if this would be three months later I no doubt could avail myself of buying it.’ I said, ‘Well, three months later would make so much difference.’ He said, ‘Well, he would have time to go to different institutions and apply for help from them to help him to buy this particular piece of property.’ So then I said, ‘How ■much rent can you afford to pay? If I gave it to you for a little less money conditional that you would pay it in three months at a little increase, could you do it?

Well, I don’t recollect what his answer to that was. But he agreed to pay me fifty dollars a month for three months at the rate of fifty dollars a month. And then at the end of that time, after the third month, if he did not succeed in buying he would obligate himself to pay seventy-five dollars a month. I asked him how he could do it then and not now, and he said, ‘Well, it may take me a little time to rent out a part of the house but I think I will succeed,’ he said.

So we closed up the matter there by renting him the house in question at fifty dollars a month for three months.” He further testified that at the expiration of the three months he went to Jones and told him that the “time was up,” and that he would “like for him to begin to start in with the seventy-five dollars a month,” but that Jones said he had not been able to get any assistance from the churches, and had only been able to rent one room. That he then com ⁶⁸⁹ plained to Jones that he (Jones) was not paying “even the little that he had bargained for,” and that the witness did not think that he would be able to pay seventy-five dollars a month, but that the witness proposed to rent Jones a part of the house, reserving to himself possession of the other part of it, and that he did rent a part of it to Jones at $14 a week, that later Jones’ stepdaughter oeeupied the property and for that he added $3 a week to the $14, and that he added $1.25 for an additional room that Jones took, and that finally he, Buckner, rented four rooms in the house and collected $4 weekly for them. So that, according to his statement, as a result of these several transactions Buckner was receiving $22.25 a week for property which he stated that he had at first rented to Jones for $12.50 a week, and of that sum Jones was paying $18.25 for a part of the property, when he had under the original arrangement, described by Buckner, paid $12.50 a week for the whole of it. The witness further testified that the Joneses had objected to tenants to whom Buckner had rented a part of the house at $4 a week, that he got rid of those tenants, and that the Joneses paid him the rent those tenants had paid in addition to what they were already paying, but that later, when Jones complained of the amount of rent he was paying, Buckner without any demur reduced it to $75 a month.

Further testifying, the witness said that after a couple of years Jones began to fall behind in his payments, and that in 1926 Jones surprised him by telling him that he has been offered the adjoining property at $7,000, payable on the instalment plan; that