Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1886-08-06

Chapel Point Lease The opinion Of
the court was Sled at the July term in the
case Of Rev. r W. Hayes, agent for the Romeu
Catholic Clergymen vs.. Adrian Posey, Trus-
Tee Of Howard Bros. II was coniended on
part Of Plaintiff that the Trustee was liable as
assignee Of the lease by operation Of the law
Tor rent accruing under the lease after the
failure Of Howard Bros. The defendant
claimed frst, that Howard Bros were not
leasehold renters, but tenants at will, ard
hence no lease could pass to the Trustee ofiheir
estate. Secondly, that he was not liable a.
assignee Of the lease because he had not ac-
cepted the same, aud could only be answers
for use and deception Of premises in making
sale or tie personal effects on the premises =
Matthews for plaintiff and Posey in bis own be-
half. The court sustained the defendants on
both points raised. The following is the opin.
ion Of the court:
In the matter Of the In Tue Circuit
Petition OF the Trustee
In Insolvency of How Court for Charles
ard Brothers County.
Mr. HAYES as agent Of the Corporation OF
the Roman Catholic CleFgymen leased 10
Howard Brothers for term o. .etrs part Of
the ST. Thomas Manor property lying Charles
county. The property leased was hotel,
s,ore home mill &c, and the principle oh
resort al
sto e.
Before the end of the term Howard Brothers
,ook tba henp6t Of the ns0lvenl law and ali
their nropert, passed into the hands of the
permanent trustee in insolvency. y he prop
erty consisted of furniture ~ the hotel and a
Il ro,o and miscellaneous stock of goods IN The
store. AS soon as he could, the trustee adver.
tised and sold all the property OF the insol-
cents ana without removing them, sold them
mon the leased premises. The winter was
spnroarb;no and the resort season being
over Il was cheaper and more convenient to
ssu them there than to remove them. No OBJ
;sc,;on n sncb course was made by Mr.
Havss and after the sale Of the goods tie
trnstee offered for sale and did sell to Mr..
HAYES the lease for a nominal sum
The rent reserved was payable quarterly,
and "a a quarters rent fell due after Howard
Brothers took the benefit and before the sale
of the lease. and the formsl delivery or ten
der of the property TO Mr. hayes, the latter
seems TO suppose that the trustee IN insolven-
CIV il liable to him for that quarters rent, and
relies on the case OF HarEesty vs. Davis I6 |
Md. IL. -.
But there is "a very marx distinction be-
tween an agreement for the oeieht OF creditors
and the operation OF the ihsolseht laws. In |
the case OF Il general agreement TOT the benefit |
of creditors, the assignor Is not thereby re-
leased from any Obigatioh VI eohttact unless
~. cra5i,or voluntarily releases him. Tbr
;nsolven, laws release the debtor absolutely
from MI contracts or obligations. The assign
men, IA the act OF the assignors. The release
nndsr the insolyent laws is the act OF the law
ana The insovent by his discharge IS abso-
InteIv released oifloat the assent Of the cred
itnrs II Il true that the lease IN this case
passpd To the trustee, whose only duty it was
10 !. II ifit is worth any thing, or to aban-
don il II worthless, aud the only test of its
worth is the offer to sell
There are a great many cases under the
6ankrupt laws III this country and England
relating to this subject but the principle TO he
ertr,rtcJ from them all, think, is this: That
the trustee is neye held liable on the lease
an{ess bU some act Of his he indicates IN iateH-
Z
ton 10 hold on 10 the isi'e. {
Tested hy this principle the trustee in this
case would be clearly released lie ouly o.
cupi.d the leased premises long enough to sell
and deliver the goods, and certainly within A
reasonable time offered the lease for sale and ;
sold il Nv no at or word OF his did he ind-
c,,,.an, intention to hold aud use the lie tsei /
premises for any purpose WI oeYer except to
sell and deliver therrtrom The goods he found
on them, aud il it came WITHIN the ordinary
lses of Bankruptcy he trustee could not lie
held liable.
But this case does not in no opinion come
within the ordinary rule owing to the lease
| itself
Leases. like any other contracts, are made
| nv the parties to suit themselves, the terms I
var, AS the parties nty agree upon Tie or I
dinaiy form Of etseS is TO tue lessee his PR
sonal regreseatdtices or The lease '
| in this case i not Ia h the CON
trsry, e1gressig pr Of the
! lease in its seeol'd CT vera
other covenants and Aani
provides that III Iowar Bro eyOlard any |
Of them, that il should work aaiaRedite tor- j,
fei'ure Of the lease, and that thereafter H3A
ard Brothers shou d only hold themselves as |
tenants at will. Among these conditions was
the payment of the rent quarterly; this con
dition the iasolreats had clearly violated an | :.
it we give, as we must do, effect 10 the plain
words OF the lease, the Howard llr0tliers we're ,
but tenants at will
Ii was VERY strenuously argued land such |
was my impression at the hearing that il 7
rested with the lessor whether lie should OF
shUuid not enact the 10 lelture, but upon re-
lection c,tnuot gree To mat view Of tue case
I nj. nj
au,e is that the lease sh1ul lie tlririlcd, |
| sau changed by violation OF lhe COVENANTS
! from a lease Tor Il term OF years to a tenanry
AT slil Tie nrdiuary form OF a Ease gives the
| landlord a right to &c enter upon the failure
OF The tenant to comply win lii conditions D
the lease. This lease in ddttft9a 70 tha de
cEtrrs that tie lease should be Immediately tor-
feaed by any failure OF the conditions aud
changed into nancy at will. The land
| lord and tensut had certainly the right to
make what terms they pie ,sedi aud il they
both agreed that such should be the effect OF Il
Vi, lation of the conditions, ] see no reason
why the agreement should not be carried into
effect,
am therefore clearly 0! opia!oa tia. the
trustee in insolvency is not liable for the quar-
tiers rent ending 3lst II December 1885.
But am equally clear that the landlord is
entitled to = reasonable sum for tie use aud
occupation of his premises by the trustee in
storing the goods and using the premises for
the sale. If that sum canaot be Fixed By
agreement between the parties, then it can be
ascertained by proof of what such occupation
was worth, and that such sum would be a
proper allowance to the trustee, as part OF
the expense properly incurred 10 executing his
trust. +. SrOSs, GU.
A bank.-Gen. Chapmen presided over
meeting held in Marlboro on THURSDAY Of last
week in taking steps towards organizing a