Volume 136 — Maryland Reports

<p>Appeal from the Orphans’ Oourt for Frederick County.</p>

<p>Ap-peal from the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City (Stanton, J.).</p>

<p>Ap-p-eal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Gortbr, L).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (Heuiseer, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Hablan, J\).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City ('Stanton, T.).</p>

<p>Appeal from tbe Baltimore City Court (Soper, O. J.).</p>

<p>Appeal front the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Gorter, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Duffy, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Harford County. In Equity (Hartan, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.. In Equity. (Henderson, J.)</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Bond, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Peter, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Gourd of Baltimore City (Bond, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Durey, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (Dawkins, J.).</p>

<p>Building Restrictions — Garage as Outbuilding — Enforcement by Heirs or Assigns — General Plan of Improvement.</p> <p>A covenant or condition that no building shall be erected “other than that now erected, this condition to include and embrace” certain named classes o£ buildings “or any outbuildings of whatsoever description,” includes a garage sought to be erected as an adjunct to a dwelling house.</p> <p>A grantee whose conveyance is in terms “subject to the restrictions and conditions in” the deed to his grantor is charged with notice of such restrictions and conditions.</p> <p>In the absence, both of language in terms conferring the benefit of a restrictive covenant upon the heirs or assigns of the original covenantee, and of evidence that the covenant was part of a general plan of improvement, the heirs or assigns are not entitled to assert such covenant.</p> <p>That a deed reads “with a view of maintaining the present high standard of the surrounding ground of which the aforegoing lot is a part, it is agreed that this deed is made upon the following conditions and covenants,” reciting them, is not sufficient to show that such conditions and covenants are inserted as a part of a general plan of improvement.</p> <p>Evidence that the vendor of a lot subject to restrictions sold neighboring lots without restrictions, and considered herself entitled to do the same as regards others, combined with a lack of evidence that any purchaser understood that the restrictions were to be inserted in deeds other than his own, was sufficient to show the absence of any general plan of improvement,</p> <p>There must be something in the deed or other instrument, or some positive act done, to show an understanding that the sales are all to be made subject to the restrictions, in order to enable the purchasers to enforce them inter sese.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Frederick County (Worthington, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. In Equity. (IJrner, O. J., and Worthington, J.)</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Huffy, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Churl, for Baltimore County (Duncan, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (McLane, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Beall and. Cam alter, JIT.).</p> <p>Statement No. 6, referred to in the opinion, was in part as follows:</p> <p>“After the jury had returned its verdict counsel for defendant stated: We object to the verdict as rendered by the jury. The Court will note that the jury returned a verdict for “twenty thousand,” but did not state as to twenty thousand what.’ Counsel for defendant then objected that the clerk had no right to amend the verdict. The Court then stated: We will let the verdict stand.’</p> <p>“The stenographer having closed his. report, and retired and the Court having no recollection of a formal exception having been taken, feel that, it is proper to allow the above statement to be placed in the record at the instance of the counsel for the defendant, which is accordingly done this 15th day of November, 1919.”</p> <p>Plaintiff’s first prayer was as follows:</p> <p>“The plaintiff, by her counsel, prays the Court to instruct the jury that if they find for the plaintiff, in estimating the damages the jury are to consider the health and condition of the plaintiff before the injury complained of, a,s compared with, her present condition in consequence of such, injuries, and whether the same are in their nature permanent, and how fax they are calculated to- disable plaintiff from engaging in those business pursuitsi for which in the absence of such injuries she would have been qualified; and also the physical and mental suffering1, if any, to which she has been subjected by reason of said- injuries, and the jury are to allow such damages as in their opinion will be fair and just compensation for the injuries suffered.”</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Stump, L).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County (Henderson, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County (Harlan, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Gorter, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Ambler, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City ((tor-tee, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Stump, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Dtjffy, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Beall, L).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit- Court for Prince George’s 'County. (Oamalibr, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Ambles, J.).</p>

<p>Three appeals in one record from the Baltimore City Court. (Gorter, J.)..</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County (Harlan, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. (Dufey, J.).</p>

The defendant’s! thirteenth prayer, referred to in the opinion as having been refused, was as follows: “The Court instructs the jury that if they find that the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s husband are not living together, and that the cause of the separation between the plaintiff and her husband was díte to the plaintiff’s own conduct and through no fault of the defendant, then their verdict must be for the defendant.” (Refused.)

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore Oity (Bond, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Gorter, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County (Henderson, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Mo-Lane, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Ambler, J.).</p>

The prayers granted and refused were as. follows: Plaintiff's First Prayer. — The jury are instructed, at the request of the claimant, that if they shall find from the evidence in this case that Adam J. Howell died on or about the 26th day of May, 1917, and that his said death was due to accidental injuries received by him, on or about the 4th day of March, 1917, arising out of and in the course of his employment by Stewart and Company, one of the defendants in this caso,…

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Bond,, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Common .Pleas, of Baltimore City (Stanton, J.).</p>

). The plaintiff submitted the following prayers: Plaintiffs First Prayer. — If the jury find from, the evidence that Augustus A. Kuntzman was killed by a locomotive operated by the agent or agents of the defendant, and that said death resulted directly from title want of ordinary care or prudence of the said agent or agents, of the defendant, or from the want of ordinary care or prudence of the gateman Hoeffer, and not from the want of ordinary care or prudence on the part…

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (Dobler, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal'from the Circuit Court for Carroll County (Forsythe, L).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (Dawkins, I.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 for Baltimore City (Dawkins, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Bond, J‘0. ,</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Stanton, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County (Beall, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City {Bond, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (Dobleb, J.).</p>

<p>.Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Durey, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County. In Equity (Hartan, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County, in Equity (Thomas, O. L, and Forsythe, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, In Equity (Pattison, C. L, Duke, and Bailey, JJ.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Stum?, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County, In Equity (Henderson, J".).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dorchester County (Batum y and Due®, JJ.).</p> <p>Defendants’ additional plea was as follows:</p> <p>“That during the tomato packing1 season of 1917, there1 was ■a partial failure of the tomato crop, and defendants were not able to pack enough No. 3 'Standard canned tomatoes to fill the contracts made by them in the early part of the year 1917; that there was a clause in defendants’ contract with plaintiffs that excused defendants from more than a 75 per ■cent, delivery in the event of such crop failure; that in addition to this the Government of the United States for its own uses requisitioned from the defendants 18 per cent, of their ■entire pack of tomatoes in 1917, which consisted partly of No. 3 Standard tomatoes and partly of No. 2 tomatoes, and required the delivery unto it of said requisition entirely in No. 3 Standard tomatoes; that defendants were finally required by the said requisition to deliver unto the said Government a little over 22.4 per cent, of all No. 3 Standard tomatoes packed by them in 1917; that on or about the 10th day of November, 1917, the defendants offered to deliver* unto the plaintiffs upon said contract as many or more No. 3 Standard tomatoes than the plaintiffs were entitled to demand from them, but the plaintiffs refused to accept same unless still more were delivered unto them.”</p> <p>Among the prayers submitted were the following:</p> <p>“Plaintiffs’ First Prayer. — If the jury shall believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into the contract of January 12, 1917, offered in evidence, and shall further find that during the packing season of 1917, the plaintiffs demanded delivery of the tomatoes called for in said contract, in accordance with the terms of said contract, and that the defendants failed to deliver (or tender delivery of) said tomatoes, if the jury shall find such failure to deliver (or to tender delivery), then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover in this action, and the verdict of the jury must be for the plaintiffs. (Granted as. amended.)</p> <p>“Plaintiffs* Second Prayer. — If the jury shall believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs and defendants entered into the contract of January 12th, 1917, offered in evidence, and shall-further find that during the packing season of 1917, the defendants packed, or by the exercise of proper diligence could have packed sufficient tomatoes of the character and quality described in said contract to give the plaintiffs the full amount of tomatoes called for in said contract, after furnishing to the Government of the United States the tomatoes required by it from said defendants then the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery in this action for the full amount of the tomatoes described in said contract.” (Rejected.)</p> <p>“Plaintiffd Third Prayer. — If the jury find for the plaintiffs, under the plaintiffs’ first prayer, then in estimating their damages, they cannot consider the provisions of the contract, which relieves against full delivery in ease of crop failure, unless they shall also find by preponderating evidence that full performance of said contract after allowing for the requirements of the United States Government was directly due to the failure of the tomato crop.” (Granted.)</p> <p>“Plaintiffs’ Fifth Prayer. — If the jury shall believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into the contract of January 12th, 1917, offered in evidence, then the burden is upon the defendants to establish by preponderating evidence, that the failure to perform the contract in this case was directly due to the failure of the tomato crop during! the season of 1917, and if the evidence in this case is such as to leave the minds of thei jury in a state of equipase as to whether or not the defendants’ failure to deliver said tomatoes was occasioned by a partial crop- failure, during said season, then the jury shall find that the plaintiffs- were entitled to have said contract performed by the delivery of all the tomatoes called for thereunder, except such as were required to be delivered to the Edited States Government.” (Rejected.)</p> <p>“Defendants’ First Prayer. — The jury are instructed that upon the evidence and the pleading in this case the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his ciase by a preponderance of evidence.” (Granted.)</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Stanton, J.).</p>

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Dusty, J.).</p>