Weininger v. Weininger

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in thisi ease, filed on November 7th, 1904, alleges that the defendants (appellants) were, previous to the month of August, 1901, the owners of a certain leasehold lot of ground on the east side of E’irst Street in Baltimore County, subject to a mortgage of three hundred dollars ²²⁸ to the C'anton Permanent Building Association of Baltimore City, and also subject to two judgments amounting together to about $135; that the said defendants continued in possession of said property up to» the month of August, 1901, when, finding themselves unable to pay said mortgage and judgments and being in arrears for taxes and ground rent, they agreed with plaintiff that if he would take, possession of said property and assume the payment of all back taxes and ground rent, and mortgage, interest and other expenses on said property, they would give plaintiff a deed for said property; that plaintiff, relying on said agreement, in August, 1901, entered into possession of said premises; paid all'back taxes and ground rent, and has paid on account of said mortgage the sum of $35.86, but that said judgments are yet unpaid, but that plaintiff tenders himself ready to pay the same; that he' has expended on said property for mortgage debt and interest, taxes, ground reht, water rent, repairs and improvements,, the sum of $461.04, which is far in excess of the value of the property; that he has established a business there, and has so improved said property that it is peculiarly adapted for his said business; that the defendants have instituted ejectment proceedings against the plaintiff before a justice of the peace, which are a fraud upon plaintiff’s rights, and if allowed to' prevail will cause him irreparable injury; that defendants have no property whatever, and are utterly irresponsible, as the said mortgage indebtedness and the judgment liens represent the entire purchase money of said property. . The prayer of the bill is for specific performance of the alleged agreement and for injunction “staying said ejectment proceedings until this matter is determined by this court”; and for further relief. A preliminary injunction was granted enjoining the defendants from proceeding with said ejectment suit until the further order of court.

Eor a period of sixteen years nothing more was done, until November, 3Óth, 19Q3, when a decree pro confesso was signed by the court, the defendants being in ²²⁹ default for want of an answer. This decree was subsequently rescinded on the petition of defendants, and they were permitted to file an answer, which was done on "February 11th, 1921. The answer denies the alleged agreement and expenditures and impecunious condition of defendants and that the mortgage and judgments represent the entire purchase money of the property; it admits the institution by defendants of restitution proceedings against the plaintiff for the purpose of asserting defendants’ legal title to the property occupied by the plaintiff at the time said proceedings were instituted, and it avers that about the year 1901 defendants moved to York, Pennsylvania,