Copp v. de Ronceray

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Miss deRonceray, the appellee, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Henry N. Copp, appellant, and recovered a judgment for $800.31, with interest from March 22, 1895. The suit was instituted upon a written contract under seal, for the conditional sale of certain' lots in “West End Park,” near Rockville, in Montgomery County. There is but a single question raised by the pleadings in the cause, and it arises upon the following clause of the contract: “ It is further agreed by said Henry N. Copp to refund the purchase money paid prior to June 1st, 1894, ³⁸ on the following terms and conditionThe lot purchaser must have complied strictly with the terms of sale herein prescribed, up to and including the month of May, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, and paid each and every instalment due to said month inclusive, personally or by representative.

The lot purchaser thereupon must present to said Henry N. Copp or his representatives, in writing, between the first and fifteenth days of June, 1894, a request for the return of the purchase money paid theretofore. This shall not include commissions, credits or sums paid as fines for delay in making payments. No excuse whatever will be accepted for failure to give the written notice aforesaid, between the first and fifteenth days of June, 1894, and all who do not give said notice as above specified, will be forever barred.” The declaration alleges a compliance with the terms of the contract as to the payment of the purchase money, and a written request for a return of the money between the first and fifteenth days of June, 1894. The only plea interposed on the part of the defendant, is that the demand for the return of the money was not made at the time specified in the contract.

It is conceded that the appellee complied with the terms of the contract in the payment of all the monthly instalments from the date 01 the contract, and including the instalment for the month of May, 1894. And certain letters from the appellee to the appellant, dated the first and fifth day of June, 1894, respectively, and a reply thereto, dated the 7th day of June, 1894, from the appellant, are in proof, as evidence of demand under the contract. The Court below sitting as a jury ruled as a matter of law, that the letter dated June 1st, 1894, and the letters dated June 5th and June 7th, 1894, were a sufficient compliance as to notice with the requirements of the contract to entitle the plaintiff to have the money refunded to her, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The contention of the appellant here is, that the Court erred in granting the plaintiffs prayers, because a