Ranstead v. Allen

Boyd, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee filed a bill against the appellant in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City to have a lease therein referred ⁴⁸³ to cancelled and to enjoin the defendant from prosecuting-any suits or proceedings to collect rent claimed to be due under the lease. It is admitted that it was duly executed and by it the appellant leased to the appellee, for the period of three years from April first, 1895, a wharf property in the city of Baltimore, on Bush street dock, at a rental of $'600 per annum, payable in monthly instalments, which the lessee covenanted to pay. The bill alleges that the plaintiff told the defendant he desired to engage in the lumber, coal and wood business and his attention had been directed to this property; that he ‘ ‘ asked said Lyman T. Ranstead what depth of water there was at said wharf; that said Lyman T. Ranstead replied that there was seventeen feet of water, and that the city guaranteed seventeen feet; that your orator then said that fourteen feet would be sufficient for him and his purposes, but he did not want less; that upon the assurance of said Lyman T. Ranstead that there was seventeen feet of water at said, wharf, and that your orator could rely upon that depth, your orator agreed to lease the said property.” It also charges that the plaintiff was induced to make the lease by the fraudulent representations of the defendant as to the depth of the water, and that there was less than fourteen feet; that about the last of April he ordered two vessels loaded with wood and lumber to unload, but they were unable to get to the wharf, although drawing not over six and one-half feet of water, and he was finally compelled to abandon the property, as it was unfit for his business.

An injunction was issued and after the defendant answered denying that he had made the representations relied on, testimony was taken and the injunction made perpetual by the decree of the Court below. From that decree the appeal was taken. The conversation in which the alleged misrepresentations were made occurred in the month of January, 1895. The appellee testified that at the suggestion of C. B. Riggin he went to the property where he met Mr. Ranstead’s manager, or agent, who showed them around the wharf.

After look ⁴⁸⁴ ing over the place he, in company with Mr. Riggin and Mr. Gorsuch, went to Mr. Ranstead’s office and what there occurred is stated by him as follows: “After stating for what purpose I wanted to rent the property, I stated to Mr. Ranstead that I thought the place would suit me if there was a proper depth of water, and inquiring of Mr. Ranstead the depth of water in the stream or dock (I don’t know what you call it), he told me it was a guaranteed depth of 37 feet.” He said he told Mr. Ranstead that he “ couldn’t •do on less than twelve feet of water.” In that interview he •did not say whether he would take the property or not, but an March he moved to Baltimore from Virginia, his former home, and called on Mr. Ranstead again about the property and it resulted in the execution of the lease of April 1st, 1895. Mr. Riggin said he introduced Mr. Allen to Mr. Ranstead, and “then they entered into conversation in regard to the wharf and mill, etc., and if my recollection serves me right Mr. Ranstead said there was a guarantee of 17 feet of water at that dock. That is as far as I can recollect.” Mr. Gorsuch said he was present “ when Mr. Allen went to rent the wharf, or the wood yard, as they .called it. Mr. Ranstead told him there was 17 feet of water there.

That’s about the most of it that I know or that I remember.” These were all the witnesses that the plaintiff produced to prove what the defendant said on that occasion. Mr. Ranstead himself denied that anything was said about the depth of the water, but in a letter from him to the plaintiff, dated May 16th, 1895, in answer to one requesting him to release the plaintiff from the contract, he says, " and further, as I advised you (in the presence of a third party), before you made the lease, the city of Baltimore is under special contract to dredge and maintain 17 feet of water in the entire Bush st. dock,” which shows that something must have been said about it in the interview above mentioned. That was the only time the depth of water was referred to between the parties. If the testimony of the appellee and ⁴⁸⁵ Mr. Riggin be accepted as correct as to what was said on the subject, there is a manifest discrepancy between it and the allegations of the bill which allege that Mr. Ranstead said “ there was seventeen feet of water and that the city guaranteed seventeen feet.” It is true, Mr. Gorsuch testified that Mr. Ranstead said “ there was 17 feet of water there,” but that is not what the plaintiff and Mr. Riggin said and their statements are in accord with the letter of the defendant, which the plaintiff offered in evidence.

It is contended that the evidence of the three witnesses is in substance to the same effect, but when tested in the light of the actual facts, there is a material difference. There is in the record an agreement between Lyman T. Ranstead and others of the one part, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore on the other part, wherein the city agreed, in consideration of the right-of-way for a sewer on Bush street and the right to discharge said sewer into the Bush street dock, “ that after the construction of said sewer it will dredge and at all times thereafter keep dredged out said dock, so that the depth of water in all portions thereof at low tide shall be at least sixteen feet. This sewer was constructed and caused trouble in the summer of 1895, according to the evidence of Mr. Fahey, who was in possession of a wharf, adjoining the one leased to Mr. Allen, and the city authorities dredged the dock in July of that year — a few months after the appellee abandoned the contract. The appellant denies that he ever said there was seventeen feet of water in the dock, and further said that he never knew seventeen feet to be in it.

As the appellee swears that he told him he could not do with less than twelve feet of water and stated in his bill that he told the defendant that fourteen feet would be sufficient for his pui'poses, it is not probable that the appellant intended to guarantee seventeen feet to induce the appellee to take the property, as it was five feet more