Posner v. Bay

Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is before this Court for the second time. At the last April Term an appeal from a pro forma decree in favor of the present appellant was heard and decided ³³ ■against- him. Bay, et al. vs. Posner, 78 Md., 42 .

The several objections to the title to the property in controversy were held by this Court to be untenable, and the title determined to be marketable, and free from the objections urged. A motion for a re-hearing was made by Mr. Posner which was recently7 overruled. ( 78 Md., 52 .) -James H. Bay, attorney in fact of Virginia B. Hynson, sold the property to Samuel Posner, “subject to the annual rent of $240.00, for the sum of $24,000.00 cash, title to be marketable and free from encumbrances; -adjustment of expenses to be made as of January 1st, 1893.” On April 1st, 1893, James H. Bay, attorney, and Virginia B. Hynson, filed a bill for specific performance against Posner, in which they set out a contract, allege their readiness, and offer to convey the property in conformity7 with its terms, and his refusal to comply with the obligation assumed by him under said contract, although often requested to do so. On the same day Posner filed his answer admitting the contract, but claiming that the title of Virginia B. Hynson to the property was defective and unmarketable.

The answer then sets out the particulars in which the title is alleged to be defective. Testimony was promptly taken, and a pro forma decree was passed overruling one -objection urged, and sustaining the others. An appeal was entered by7 the plaintiffs the same day, and the record transmitted to this Court in time for the April Term. As already stated, by our decision in the case of James S. Bay, and others vs. Samuel Posner, above referred to, all of the objections brought to our notice were held to be unwarranted, and the title to the property declared to be good.

The vendee was therefore bound by the contract, and was under obligation to comply with its provisions. By its explicit terms the adjustment was ³⁴ to be made as of January 1st, 1893. The purchase money was due and payable then, and, as a consequence, the vendor is entitled to interest from that date. Her title having been declared to be good and marketable, she is entitled to a compliance with the terms of the contract.

It would be inequitable, and contrary to the-plain meaning of the contract, to withhold from her the-interest on the purchase money from the time it should have been paid. The vendee doubtless felt justified in-having the title passed upon by the Court, but it was at. the risk of his being compelled to pay the interest from-the first day of January, as well as the costs, if he failed to sustain his position. Of course, the vendee is