Renshaw ex rel. Renshaw v. Lefferman

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. There is a good deal of obscurity in the wording of the contract of the 14th of September, 1864, upon the point, whether the $4000 purchase money for the particular lot and improvements known as the “ Tan Yard Property/’ in case Lefferman exercised his option to buy it, was to be paid in gold or in currency, and there was certainly very reasonable ground for the contention on his part, that he' could pay that sum for it in currency. This obscurity in the terms of the contract, was noticed in the opinion delivered when the case was before this Court on the former appeal. 45 Md., 119 . The decision, however, was that taking the whole agreement together, the $4000 were payable in gold, or its equivalent in currency.

But the Court further decided, that though such was the legal effect of the agreement, yet in view of this obscurity, and the reasonable doubt as to its true construction, it was clearly the duty of Mrs. Renshaw to have objected to the payment in currency when it was tendered by Lefferman; that he was under no obligation to purchase the property, but on the contrary, it was entirely optional with him to take it or not, and when she accepted payment in currency, and executed and delivered a deed for the property, the presumption was, in absence of proof to the contrary, that she waived a compliance with the terms of the agreement as she understood them. The Court then adds, “there is-not a particle of proof to show mistake, surprise or fraud, nor is there any evidence which would lead us to infer, that Lefferman would have taken the property if payment in gold had been demanded. . One thing is clear, if such demand had been made, or if Mrs. Renshaw had ²⁸³ objected to payment in currency, Lofferman could have declined to take the property. Under such circumstances we do not think the plaintiff is entitled to recover.” The Court then reversed the judgment, and awarded a new trial.

The new trial has been prosecuted upon the sole ground of mistake. There is no charge or pretence of fraud or surprise. The amended declaration avers, that the deed was by the mistake of Tier husband, who acted as the plaintiff’s agent in the premises, (she being in Paris at the time,) inadvertently delivered to the defendant upon his paying the §4000 in currency, instead of gold or its equivalent as stipulated by the agreement, that this mistake was discovered by her husband shortly after the delivery of the deed, and immediately upon its