Rosenthal v. Freeburger

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore city granting an injunction, and brings before us only the hill of complaint. This alleges that the appellee was, at the time of filing it, in the occupation of certain premises on Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore city, which he had so occupied for a number of years, and which he had originally rented of one Williamson, the then owner-thereof, at a yearly rent of $200, payable monthly. That-the appellant purchased said premises from Williamson,, promising the appellee that he should be his permanent, tenant of the same.

That after the purchase the appellant entered into an, agreement with the appellee, by which he bound himself to give the appellee a lease for five years at a rent of $200 a year, payable monthly, exclusive of water rent, and that in a few months after the purchase, the appellant gave the appellee notice to quit, and thereupon instituted proceedings before a Justice of the Peace and in a Court of Law, which resulted in a judgment awarding to the appellant as landlord the possession of the premises, because said agreement for a five years’ lease was void at law, where the relationship was treated as a tenancy at will, or from year to year. The hill then charges that in equity the appellee is entitled to a decree for a specific performance of this agreement for a lease for five years, and to an injunction ⁸⁰ restraining the appellant from any further proceedings under his judgment of restitution. The agreement for a lease alleged in the bill, and on which the relief is prayed, is an agreement within the Statute of Frauds, and can only be evidenced in writing, unless