Gilman v. Smith

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We agree with the Court below that time in this case is of the essence of the contract, and that the extension of time asked by the appellants to enable them to perfect the title to the Cannon street lot was properly refused. The facts, shortly stated, are as folloAvs: The appellees bought at public auction of the appellants,, as Trustees of the Abbott Iron Company, a lot of ground in Baltimore City known as the i ‘Puddle and Plate Mill Lot.” This lot is composed of a number of smaller lots, the titles to some of which were found to be defective, and the appellees thereupon filed exceptions to the ratification of the sale. Subsequently, howeArer, the titles to all the smaller lots were made satisfactory to the purchasers with the exception of the bed of Cannon street, which runs through the entire block of lots as sold, and which street for a number of years had been closed by proceedings instituted by the Abbott Iron Company.

The sale was, in the opinion of the trustees, an advantageous one, and they wére anxious therefore that it should be ratified by the Court. Accordingly on the ¹⁷³ fourth (lay of June, 1887, they entered into an agreement with the appellees, hy the terms of which the latter were to take a deed of the entire property as sold, and to pay the whole purchase money, $54,500, less the sum of $2,885.40, the estimated value of the Gannon street property, and the appellees further agreed to pay the sum of $2,885.40 thus retained by them, provided- the trustees on or before the 1st of October, 1887, tendered to them a complete title to the Cannon street lot. This agreement the trustees made with the consent of the parties in interest, all of whom were sui juris, and it was subsequently ratified by the Court. The trastees were unable, however, it seems, to perfect the title to this lot within the time fixed by the agreement.

They did, however, tender to the appellees an unsigned deed, which upon its face purported to convey the interests of certain grantors therein named, with an agreement on the part of one of the grantors to take the necessary proceedings in 'equity to perfect the title, upon security being- given to cover the costs and expenses of the suit. This deed the appellees refused to accept, and the question is whether the trustees are entitled to an extension of time to perfect the title. It is admitted as a general rule, that in the sale and0purchase of real estate the fixing a particular day for the completion of the contract is not regarded as of the essence of the contract, for the