Paradise Amusement Co. v. Hollyday

Markell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to a supplemental petition in the nature of a supplemental bill. Throughout 1944 appellee and her uncle, Fillmore Cook, owned as equal tenants” in common real estate, most of which was occupied by appellant as tenant. Appellee owned 49 per cent of the stock of appellant; Cook owned or controlled the other 51 per cent and was president.

On J une 21, 1944 appellee filed a bill against Cook for various relief, including an accounting for rents collected by him. On July 27, 1944 a consent decree for such accounting was passed. On September 14 and 15, 1944, respectively, appellee gave appellant notices purporting (1) to terminate appellant’s “yearly tenancy” of the premises on December 31, 1944 and (2) to increase the rent for the premises to $450 monthly. Appellant refused to pay the increased rent, but by agreement the old rent was paid and received without prejudice.

On April 7, 1945 appellee and her husband filed a petition in the nature of a supplemental bill praying that the court make appellant a party and “determine the fair rental value of the real estate”. Cook and appellant demurred on the ground that the supplemental ⁵⁰ bill did not state a case for relief in equity. This court held that the demurrers should have been sustained, saying, “We find no allegation warranting the court of equity in interposing for the purpose of ascertaining the fair rental value of the property.” Cook v. Hollyday, 1946, 186 Md. 42 , 45 A. 2d 768, 771, 772 . In August 1946 appellee sold her one-half interest in the real estate to a Miss Boehl, who on August 22, 1946 filed a bill against Cook for sale for the purpose of partition and for appointment of a receiver pending sale.

In September, 1946 Miss Boehl notified appellant that its tenancy of her- one-half interest would terminate on December 31, 1946. Appellant intervened in the partition case. On November 4, 1946 a decree was passed appointing a trustee to sell and to collect the rents pending sale. The trustee petitioned the court to instruct him regarding the proper amount of rent to collect.

On January 6, 1947 the court passed an order adjudging that (a) Miss Boehl’s notice to appellant terminated appellant’s. tenancy as to her one-half interest on December 31, 1946 but not as to Cook’s interest and (5) the rent to be paid by appellant for Miss Boehl’s interest after December 31, 1946 until ratification of sale should be $225 per month. Cook and the present appellant appealed from the decree of November 4, 1946 and the order of January 6, 1947. On June 11, 1947