Naughton v. Clubb

³⁷⁶ Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James E. Clubb brought this suit for specific performance to compel Weyman G. Edwards and Mary S. Edwards, his wife, residents of the City of Washington, to convey to him their real estate situated at 4510 Suit-land Road in Prince George’s County. On the morning of March 1, 1945, Clubb, who was the lessee of the property, was notified by Mrs. Edwards by telephone that she and her husband had decided to sell the property, and offered it to him for $5,500, but wanted his acceptance by 6 o’clock that evening, as they were leaving the city. In the afternoon Clubb conferred with the cashier of the Clinton Bank and with an attorney.

He was anxious to buy the property, and while he had no money to pay for it, he thought that he could arrange to finance the transaction. That evening he called to see Mr. and Mrs. Edwards at their apartment on P Street in Washington; and as an evidence of good faith made a deposit of $10, for which Mrs. Edwards gave him the following receipt: “Received from Mr. J. E. Clubb $10.00 on condition that we receive $4500.00 in cash and balance of $1000 note for property at 4510 Suitland Road, 1.74 acres known as The Hess Place.” The receipt was signed by Mary S. Edwards, but not by her husband. On March 3, Mrs. Edwards phoned Clubb again to inform him that her husband had received another offer for the property, and that they had decided not to sell to him. She also said that she would return his $10.

On March 5 the owners executed a contract to sell the property to Edward A. Garvey for $5,100. While this was $400 less than the price that Clubb had agreed to pay, they realized that it was doubtful whether Clubb would be able to borrow $4,500, whereas Garvey offered to pay the entire amount in cash. On March 6, Mrs. Edwards mailed a check for $10 to Clubb, but he did not cash it or return it. On March 7 Garvey assigned his interest in the property to Leo J. Naughton and Walter L. Green.

On June 5 Naughton and Green filed a petition alleging ³⁷⁷ that prior to the institution of the suit they had no notice of the agreement alleged by Clubb, and praying for permission to intervene in the case. It is well settled that a court of equity will allow any person to intervene in a suit for the purpose of protecting a property interest, although no such right is specifically conferred by statute. Conroy v. Southern Maryland Agricultural Ass’n, 165 Md. 494 , 169 A. 802 ; Lickle v. Boone, 187 Md. 579 , 51 A. 2d 162 . Hence, the petitioners were properly allowed to intervene as defendants.

Edwards and his wife and the two interveners pleaded the Statute of Frauds