Maryland case law › King v. Warfield

King v. Warfield

67 Md. 246 (1887) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedYellott✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellees (Warfield et al.) executed under seal an instrument purporting to lease twenty-one acres of land, a dwelling house, and improvements on the Washington County branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad to the appellant (King) for fifteen months from January 1, 1885,…

Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. An instrument of writing under seal, purporting to be •a lease, was executed on the 16th day of December, 1884, by the parties to this cause. By the terms of this instrument the appellees leased twenty-one acres of land on the Washington County branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, together with a dwelling house and other improvements thereon, to the appellant for the term of fifteen months from thé first day of January, 1885, at the 248 yearly rent of one thousand dollars, with the privilege of renewing said lease on the same terms after its expiration. It is, however, expressly agreed between said parties-that this lease shall not be binding on the appellant “in any way” until he, the said appellant, shall be “appointed and installed by the proper officers of the Baltimore and Ohio Bailroad Company as freight and ticket agent of said company at Breathedsville station, in Washington County, Md., on the Washington County branch of the Baltimore- and Ohio Bailroad.” This instrument of writing under seal, is set forth in full in the declaration, and the plaintiff then avers that, although-be was not appointed by the officers of the said railroad company at the place aforesaid, he elected that said lease should be binding on him, and demanded possession of said demised premises from the defendants, who refused to deliver possession, and in consequence of such refusal he has brought suit for the recovery of damages.

To the declaration the defendants demurred, and the-demurrer was ruled good by the Court, and final judgment rendered against the plaintiff, and in favor of the-defendants for costs. From this judgment an appeal has-been taken. The record discloses the existence of an executory contract. It is said to be an elementary principle that, to render an executory contract valid, both parties must be-bound.

Rathbone vs. Warren, 10 Johns., 587 . Now it will be seen that it is provided in this instru- - ment under seal, that “this lease shall not be binding on the said King in any way until the said King shall be appointed to and installed by the proper officers of the Baltimore and Ohio Bailroad Company as freight and ticket-agent of the said company at Breathedsville station, in Washington County, Md., on the Washington County branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Bailroad.” It is thus-apparent

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