Horner v. Chaisty

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Ón the 12th day of February, 1874, Edward J. Chaisty of Baltimore City leased for the term of ninety-nine years, renewable forever, to Mary E. R. Sheffield, two lots or parcels of land- situated in Baltimore City. An annual rent of thirty-four dollars was reserved by the lease upon each of the two lots, payable thereafter in semi-annual installments on the 15th of February and the 15th of August in each and every year, during the continuance of the lease. The lessee also covenanted to pay all taxes and assessments levied and charged upon the two lots throughout the term of the demise. Edward J. Chaisty, the lessor, upon his death devised the reversion in the two lots, with the rights under the lease, to his son, Edward J. Chaisty, Jr., the plaintiff below' and the appellee here.

Mary E. R. Sheffield, the original lessee, died January, 1891, and by her last will and testament bequeathed the lots to her son Byron R. Sheffield, and he subsequently assigned them to one Jacob F. Cramer. Afterwards Cramer mortgaged the lots to one Charles B. Reed, and he assigned the same to Albert N. Horner, the appellant in this case. Cramer, on the 30th of March, 1900, assigned the equity of redemption in the lots, to one Robert C. Rhodes. The rent and taxes upon this property being largely in ar ⁵⁹⁵ rear, the appellee, the owner of the reversion, filed a bill in Circuit Court No. 2, of Baltimore City, on the 8th day of August, 1903, against the distributees of the original lessee, Albert N. Horner, the holder of the title by assignment of mortgage, and Robert C. Rhodes, the owner of the equity of redemption.

The object of the proceeding is to enforce the covenants of the lease as to payment of arrearages of rent, taxes, and also to recover all sums paid by the plaintiff for redeeming the property from tax sales, on the ground that the buildings have become untenantable and a distraint would be useless and nugatory. The case was heard upon bill, answers and proofs, and from a decree against the defendants directing the payment of the sum of four hundred and ninety-two dollars and twenty-four cents, the defendant Horner, alone, has appealed. There is no question made as to the correctness of the decree against the other defendants, so the sole question presented for our consideration comes to Horner’s liability, as assignee of the leasehold interest under the mortgage. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff cannot recover, because the mortgage held by him had been paid; and a release executed to the mortgagor, prior to the institution of.these proceedings.

While this is admitted, it is also conceded that the release was never recorded, the plaintiff had no knowledge of it, and no such release appears upon the land records of Baltimore City. Upon this state of facts, we do not see upon what principle of law the appellee’s contention can be maintained, or upon that ground the appellant can be held liable. According to an agreement filed in the case, it is admitted that the mortgage which was assigned by Charles B. Reed to Albert N. Horner, on or about the 22nd day of September, 1898, and recorded among the land records of Baltimore City, was paid to Albert N. Horner towards the close of the year 1898, and that a release of the mortgage was duly executed, but that the release has never been recorded. ⁵⁹⁶ There can be no doubt as to the general principle that the covenant to pay rent in a lease not only binds the lessee personally throughout the