Maryland case law › Hayes v. Covington

Hayes v. Covington

183 Md. 506 (1944) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: ReversedCapper✓ Good law
HoldingCovington filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court No.

507 Capper, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant appeals from a decree of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, granting an injunction restraining and enjoining him from further occupying market stalls Nos. 291, 292 and 294 in Lafayette Market, Baltimore, Maryland, from the first day of February, 1944, during the life of the tenancy. Appellee’s bill for injunction alleged that he was a sublessee from V. Graziano & Son of said market stalls and had been so for about three and one-half years; that he has continued this tenancy ever since by paying rent in advance to November 15, 1943; that he employed the appellant and one James Smallwood in connection with the operation of said stalls and paid them on a weekly profit-sharing basis of 40 per cent, of the net profit to each one and that appellee received 20 per cent, of the net profits; that this employment continued approximately three years until the said James Small-wood was inducted into the United Str¿es Army when appellant’s share of the net profits was increased to 60 per cent, and the appellee’s share remained at 20 per cent, and Smallwood’s wife was given the remaining 20 per cent. The appellee further alleged that during the entire employment he assumed responsibility for all goods purchased and sold at the said market stalls and that the same were charged to him personally and paid for with his personal checks; that on the 4th of November, 1943, the appellant advised him that he was no longer willing to continue the employment agreement and that in the future he would operate the market stalls in his own name, since which time he has continued to operate said stalls for himself and denies and continues to deny the use of same to appellee.

The bill of complaint was answered by appellant who denied the allegations of appellee concerning the rental of the said stalls and claimed that in April, 1938, he leased said stalls from V. Graziano. He denied the relationship of employer and employee 508 and alleged an agreement between appellee, appellant, and one James Smallwood for division of the profits, which agreement was necessitated by reason of the fact that the appellee could and did make a credit arrangement which the other parties were unable to dp and that this credit arrangement was the reason for the payment to appellee of 20 per cent, of the profits provided for in the original agreement. Appellant further alleged that on or about November 4, 1943, when he no longer needed appellee’s assistance in connection with credit, he notified him of his intention to abandon said arrangement and that he would in the furture conduct the business on his own responsibility. It seems apparent from the record that thereafter appellee had no further access to or connection with said stalls.

The testimony of appellee, Charles H. Covington, is to the effect that he rented these stalls from Vincent Graziano during April, 1939, for $30 per month and deposited with a credit association $500 to enable Hayes and Smallwood to purchase merchandise on his credit. He testified that Hayes and Smallwood were his employees on the commission hereinbefore stated. When asked whether he ever complained to the landlord, Graziano, about his right to occupy the stalls when Hayes was occupying them, he said that on one occasion after he had. discontinued credit and before Hayes opened the stalls, he told Graziano the stalls were closed and he wanted to open them up, but that appellant had the keys and -that appellee did not wish to break the locks, but thought he was wrongfully denied access to the stalls. The landlord, Graziano, stated that he would have to think it over and decide who was the tenant and did not give him any positive answer.

Appellee further testified that Graziano, the landlord, never gave him the keys to these stalls. This was all of the evidence produced on the part of appellee. The record contains none of the checks paid for

This is a preview of Hayes v. Covington. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.