Pratt v. Gray
Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On September 27th, 1919, appellant and appellees executed a written contract of sale by which appellees sold to appellant a lot on McCullough Street, Baltimore, for $2,700; of which amount $50 was, paid at the time of the1 execution of the contract and the balance was to be paid “in thirty days from date.” It was also agreed that appellant should rent the house to appellees for six weeks after the transfer of the property. The balance of the purchase money was not paid or tendered within the time mentioned. There is some conflict of testimony as to when appellant notified appellees, he was ready to complete the transaction; but it is, admitted by appellees that they were notified by Y\.
C. McCard, appellant’s attorney, by letter dated December 11th, 1919, that appellant was ready to pay for the property, and that they were requested to name a date for making the transfer. Appellees did not reply to this letter, because, according to their testimony, they considered the contract at an end on the failure of appellant to pay the balance of the purchase money within the thirty days. They did not, however, offer to return the cash payment. A bill for specific performance was filed February 9th, 1920, by appellant.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing the bill. The only question here involved is whether time was of the essence of the contract, or whether appellant has been guilty of gross laches. 474 The general rule in equity is that time stipulated for the payment of purchase money is not regarded as a condition which requires strict performance to entitle a vendee to have the sale consummated. Robinson v. Johnson, 137 Md. 610 . “The rule is definitely settled that time of payment is not of the essence of such an agreement, unless it is so made by express stipulation, or unless the intention that it shall be so regarded is apparent from the circumstances of the transaction, the contract of the parties, or the special purpose for which the sale was contracted.”
This is a preview of Pratt v. Gray. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.