Guilford Building Co. v. Goldsborough

HejS'eb, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee, having been duly notified to vacate the rented quarters he was then occupying, agreed, oil August 18th, 1920, to lease from the appellant an apartment in a building, then under construction, located at University Parkway and Guilford Avenue in Baltimore, and known as the Temple Court. The agreement was verbal, but was intended to be followed by the execution of a formal lease. It ¹⁶⁰ was supposed that the apartment would he finished on or soon after the first of October, 1920, and it was agreed that the term of the tenancy should end on September 30th, 1921.

The rental was at the rate of one hundred and fifty dollars per month. At the time of the agreement in August, an advance payment of one month’s rent was required. The receipt given for this payment includes the statement: “Rent to begin from date of completion of apartment.” The term of the appellee as tenant of the rooms in which he was then living expired on September 30th, 1920, but as the new apartment was not then ready for occupancy, he secured permission to continue his existing tenancy for a period of several weeks. The time thus allowed him having terminated, he moved into the Temple Court apartment on October 25th.

At that time the work in the main hallway and on the stairs of the building was still in progress, the heating system was not completed, and one of the bathrooms, in the apartment agreed to he leased to the appellee, which consisted of three bedrooms, dining room, living room, kitchen, two bathrooms and connecting halls, was untiled and not in a condition to be used. The testimony is in conflict as to' certain other particulars in which the apartment is said to< have been unfinished when the appellee entered into possession under pressure of the necessity of removing from the premises he had previously occupied. It is clearly proven that the bathroom referred to- was not finished until the middle of December. The hall, stairs and heating system were completed at earlier’ periods.

The appellee's apartment is on the third floor of the building, and does not appear from the record to- have been accessible otherwise than by the stairway. It was not until the early part of December that the hallway was completed. For nearly a month after the appellee moved into the building, the tile flooring in the hall and the concrete steps of the stairs were unfinished, a passage being afforded by the temporary use of hoards. During the same period the hall was lighted with lanterns, the electric fixtures not yet having been installed. ¹⁶¹ Because of the conditions we liave described, tbe appellee objected to having the rent begin to accrue prior to December 15th, while the appellant claimed that it should run from October Both, and their inability to agree upon that subject has prevented the execution of the lease which the appellant prepared and submitted, and to which in other respects there was no objection.

In this suit for specific performance, brought by the appellee, to require the execution of a lease to him by the appellant for a term beginning December 3 5th, 1920, and ending September 30th, 1921, it has been agreed by the parties that the issues between them shall be fully determined. To that end certain actions at law in relation to the rent and possession have been abandoned. After a hearing' in the court below, it was decided that the stipulated rent of one hundred and