W. v. Guthrie Co. v. Baltimore Methodist Publishing & Printing Co.

The plaintiff, the W. V. Guthrie Company of Baltimore City, and the defendant, the Baltimore Methodist Publishing and Printing Company of Baltimore City, agreed in writing that the former should print for the latter a religious periodical called “ The Baltimore Methodist” in consideration that a lease held by the defendant should be assumed by the plaintiff and in further consideration of the payment by the defendant of forty dollars per week for such printing and the necessary materials until the 1st January, 1899. The written contract sets forth certain other considerations, and contains a ⁷³⁹ variety of provisions which we do not think it necessary to mention, for, although the exceptions are numerous, the controlling question is a narrow one and may be disposed of briefly. The narr. contains the common counts and a special count setting forth the written contract sued on. The defendant pleaded the general issue and a special plea.

The latter alleges that the plaintiff before suit brought had transferred and assigned all its rights under the contract to Leon Levy and W. V. Guthrie, trading as the Levy & Guthrie Company, who agreed to the alteration of said contract and continued to print the defendants paper until the 20th October, 1898, when a settlement in full was made by the defendant with said Levy & Guthrie Co., and that the contract for printing the paper of the defendant ceased and determined. The plaintiff joined issue on the general issue pleas and traversed the special plea, denying the alleged settlement and alleging that the contract declared on continued to exist between the plaintiff and defendant after the date mentioned. The defendant joined issue on this replication—and the narrow issue wTas presented as to whether there was any contract in existence on which the plaintiff can recover in the name in which it sues or in any other name. For, although the plea alleges that the plaintiff has assigned its rights in the contract sued on, yet the uncontradicted evidence is that the plaintiff and the Levy & Guthrie Company to whom the alleged assignment was made are one and the same corporation, and that there never was legally even a change in the plaintiff’s name, except to the extent of printing on same of the • plaintiff’s stationery the new name which it used.

So that it was a concession in the case that the plaintiff and the Levy & Guthrie Company are both one company, and the issue as we have said, and the only issue was whether there was any contractual relation existing between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time suit was brought. During the course of the trial eleven exceptions were taken-—ten of which relate to the exclusion of testimony and one to the ruling on the prayers. The case was tried before the Judge without a jury, and the verdict being for the