Lynch v. Kamanitz

Adkins, L, delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court. On August 19th, 1922, appellant by agreement in writing-leased to Harry Kamanitz, one of tbe -appellees, tbe storeroom 713 Frederick Avenue in Baltimore City for the- term of three years “beginning.on tbe date of possession,” at $70-a month. Tbe lease contained tbe usual covenants by the: tenant. It contained this further provision: ³⁸³ “It is further agreed that this lease does not take effect until the landlord improves the premises with a new store front, and a kitchen in rear not smaller than 6x14 ft.” This paper was signed by appellant and by both appellees, although only Harm' Kamanitz was named in the lease as tenant.

It was witnessed by Nell E. Regner. There was considerable delay in making improvements, and when Simon Kamanitz, one of the appellees, was notified. that the premises- were ready for -occupancy, ho complained of the delay, but mainly, after inspection, that the improvements were not in accordance with the agreement. He testified: “Two- weeks before Christmas, she came- down and said, ‘I -am ready for yon now.’ When be went out to- look at the property witness said, ‘You are not ready at all, where is your bay window inside? Where is the spare room in the .rear ?’ She said: “That is all I am going to- do.

If you don’t want it you don’t have to take it.’ ‘I told her I did not like it the way it is.’ ” Tobias Hartz, a son in law of Simon Kamanitz, testified that appellant said on this occasion: “This property was just the way it was going to be, that she was not going to put another penny into- it and the property was ready to- occupy, and she said, ‘If you don’t want it you don’t have to take it,’ that someone -else would take it.” This testimony is not rebutted by appellant. Appellees testify without contradiction that no demand was ever made for rent or any claim made by appellant except by the filing of the bill of complaint in this- case. In October, 1923, the store was rented to some one else. The bill was filed -on March 26th, 1924.

In it plaintiff alleges among other things that it was the intention of the parties that the lease should be drawn in such manner as to make both of the defendants (appellees here) responsible to plaintiff for the rent; that the lease was drawn as- between plaintiff -as landlord and Harry Kamanitz as tenant, the name ³⁸⁴ of Simon Kamanitz, father of Harry, having been omitted therefrom through error, but that plaintiff refused to- lease the property upon the sole responsibility of the son, and that the lease was signed and sealed by plaintiff and by both defendants, the signatures witnessed, and a copy of said lease-delivered to said Simon Kamanitz, who paid plaintiff forty dollars on account of rent, that after the execution of the lease, plaintiff erected the new store front and the kitchen on the-rear of said premises as called for by the lease; that the rent is now overdue and greatly in arrears; that plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is entitled to have the lease-reformed by having the name of Simon Kamanitz inserted therein as “tenant” and the letter “s” after the word “tenant” wherever said word appears in the lease. The prayer of the bill is for reformation of the lease as above indicated; and that after such reformation defendants-be required to pay plaintiff such sum of money as may be found to be due from the date of the lease to October 23rd, 1923, and interest thereon; and for further relief. The answer avers that the negotiations for the rental of' the property were with Harry Kamanitz and Simon Kamanitz acting in behalf of his son, but denies that such negotiations were conducted with the view of having said Simon become a tenant of the property; it also denies that it was-the intention of the parties that the lease should be drawn in such manner as to make both defendants liable for rent, or that the name of Simon was omitted from the lease through error, and avers that it was intentionally omitted; and that the forty dollars paid by Simon was made