Steinpreis v. Miller

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We repeat here something of what was said, and decided, a few months ago, in Steinpreis v. Leet, 240 Md. 212 , 213 A. 2d 555 (1965). The appellant is the same (Steinpreis), the complaint is the same (want of jurisdiction in the People’s Court of Montgomery County), and the subject matter is the same (appellant’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for the payment of rent). Chief Judge Prescott, in Leet supra, began the Court’s opinion by saying: “This appeal gives us little difficulty in its decision.

Our main difficulty has been to attempt to unravel the pertinent issue or issues for determination (briefs on both sides [in the present case the appellees did not appear] and the record extract having been prepared and submitted in proper person) * * * “In the condition that the record reaches us it is impossible to be certain, that the facts are stated with precision and accuracy. However only a few are necessary to determine the appeal, and we shall state them as they seem to be developed in the record.” Id at 213-14. Laboring under somewhat the same difficulty we have sorted out what we believe to be the relevant facts in this case. On 1 April 1964 (after vacating the farm described in Leet supra) appellant agreed orally with appellees for the occupancy of appellees’ property for an annual rental of $900.00 payable in monthly installments of $75.00. 1 Appellant moved in and paid ⁸¹ rent for the months of April, May, June and July.

Early in November appellees caused to be issued out of the People’s Court the summons authorized by the Code, Art. 53, §§ 28-32 (1957, Repl. Vol. 1964) (now Art. 53 §§ 39N-R (1957, Repl. Vol. 1964, Cum. Supp. 1965)).

Rent for the months of August, September, October and November ($300.00) was claimed to be due. The summons was posted on the property and a copy left with appellant’s wife, appellant being away from home at the time. We must assume that he became aware of the