Mayor of Baltimore v. Gamse & Brother

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a proceeding by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to condemn, under the right of eminent domain, the leasehold interest of the appellees in a lot of land and the improvements thereon, situated on the northwest corner of Saratoga and Courtland Streets, and occupied by them in the conduct of their business of lithographing and printing. The said lot of land which fronts fifty feet on Saratoga Street, with a depth of one hundred feet on Courtland Street, is improved by a brick building of three stories and a basement. The premises ‘were first leased unto the appellees, Herman Gamse and Benno E. Gamsei, trading as H. Gamse and Brother, by the Owners Realty Company, by deed of lease dated the ninth day of December, 1910, for the term of five years, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1911, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, at and for the annual rental of three1 thousand dollars.

The said lease contained the following provisions: “That at the expiration of the lease and upon a previous notice of six months by II. Gamse & Brother, this lease shall continue in force for another period of five years, subject to the same conditions as herein set forth, but subject to an increased rental of thirty-three hundred dollars per annum.” ²⁹² Before the expiration of the lease it was agreed by the parties thereto that upon a renewal of it the lessors should malte certain improvements, upon the leased property, for which the lessees were to pay to the lessors, as rent, the sum of two hundred and ten dollars, per year, in addition to the said rental of thirty-three hundred dollars provided for by the original lease1, making a total rental therefor of three thousand five hundred and ten dollars; and on the 27th day of March, 1916, a renewal lease was executed by the parties, in conformity with the agreement so. made, for the term of five years, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1916, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1921. This lease contained no. provision for its renewal. It was to condemn the leasehold interest of the appellees in said property that these proceedings were instituted.

The Commissioners for Opening Streets awarded to the appellees one thousand dollars compensation therefor, and the appellees, being dissatisfied with said award, appealed therefrom to the Baltimore City Court, where a trial by jury was had, which resulted in an award of nine thousand two hundred and fifty dollars to the appellees, as compensation for the taking of their leasehold estate. From that award the City has appealed to this Court. At the conclusion of the evidence both the City and the appellees asked for instructions to the jury as to the measure o-f damages applicable to the facts before them. The appellees’ first and third prayers were refused and its second was granted as modified.

The appellant’s first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth prayers were refused. Its second was granted and its fourth A and sixth prayers granted as modified. In addition to the prayers granted, the Court granted an instruction of its own. The City, prior to the institution of these proceedings, had acquired the reversionary interest of The Owners Realty ²⁹³ Company in said property by a conveyance from it, and, as we have said, the controversy here relates only to the amount the appellees are entitled to be paid for their leasehold interest, taken from them under these proceedings.

The appellees, as owners of the leasehold, and the City, as owner of the reversion, -acquired from the Owners Realty Company, together held the fee simple estate, and the sum of the values of these interests is the value of the property taken. Gluck v. M. & C. C. of Baltimore, 81 Md. 321 . The value of the property is not enhanced by the fact that the entire title or estate in the property is not held by one and the same party. Lewis on Eminent Domain (3rd Edition), Section 716.

In proceedings instituted to condemn the reversionary interest, as well as the leasehold interest, the rule is to ascertain tiro entire compensation to he allowed as though the entire title or estate in the property belong to one person, and then apportion the sum between the holders of the different interests, according to their respective rights; Baltimore City v. Latrobe, 101 Md. 629 . As was said by this Court, speaking through Ciitee Judge Boyd, in the case last cited, “the condemning party, as a rule, ought not to he required to pay for the two interests more than the portion taken would be worth if owned by one person. * * * The jury or other tribunal authorized to make the award, should always keep the value of the entire property in mind, and should limit the whole amount to he paid to that value, unless it is clearly shown that the lessee is entitled to more than the difference between what they allowed the reversioner and what the whole property would he worth in the market if there had been no ground rent.” When the entire property included in a lease is taken the question is one of comparatively easy solution, although there may be, as in this case, two separate estates therein, held by different parties. In such case the rule stated above may ordinarily he applied without difficulty. ²⁹⁴ By the weight of authority, the rule, as to the measurement of compensation in cases like the one before us> is, generally speaking, precisely the same, whether the assessment of damages be to the tenant in fee, for life, or for years. The tenant should be allowed the market value of his estate.

See note to Baltimore v. Latrobe , Vol. 4, A. & E. Annotated Cases, 1005. In Baltimore City v. Latrobe, supra, Judge Boyd said “the reversioner is undoubtedly entitled to what this interest is worth in the market and prima facie the leasehold is charged with that value.” Gluck v. Baltimore City, supra. In Baltimore Gity v. Bice, 73 Md. 307 , the Oity was granted a prayer, by which the jury were instructed that they could award the owner of the leasehold estate “only the fair market value of his interest in the brick-yard, less the fair man'ket value of his-interest in so much thereof as would remain after the opening of Clare Street.” This Court held that prayer good, and said of it, that it covered the whole question. It would thus seem that, in this state at leást, the measurement of compensation for the appropriation of an estate, in cases of this character, is ordinarily the market value of the estate.

The Court’s prayer instructed the jury “that they are to estimate and allow to the lessees the valúe of the right to continue in undisturbed possession of the premises for the remainder of the term fixed in the lease now existing, and that this value SO' to be estimated is represented by the price at° which a lessee in the situation of the present lessees willing but not compelled to sell would sell the right, and a buyer, if there should be any such, willing but not compelled to buy, would pay for the right; that in arriving at their estimate the jury should consider the extent to which the building has been specially equipped and adapted for the lessees and the labor and expense of dismantling, removing and reassembling the machinery and appliances in another place at this time;, not that the jury shall award to the ²⁹⁵ lessees the items of expense of equipment and adaptation of the building and of moving the plant, hut they shall bear such items in mind as possible factors, which might play some part in the value and selling price mentioned above in this instruction.” It is contended by the appellant that this prayer incorrectly states the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed hy the Record, and should not have been granted. The building and improvements upon the leased premises were constructed for the appellees by The Owners Realty Company, with special regard for the adaptability of the same to the purposes for which the premises were to he used hy the appellees; and the lessees, at their own expense, made other improvements for the better adaptation and equipment of the premises for the use for which they were intended. The terms and conditions, if anyj upon which the improvements were made by the appellees do not appear in the Record. It is not shown that there was any agreement between the lessor and the lessee by which the latter were to be paid therefor, or that such