Wehr v. Roland Park Co.

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A bill in equity was filed by Bertha L. "Wehr against The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City and The Roland P'ark Roads and Maintenance Corporation. Afterwards Charles Willms, Michael F. McCormick and J. Douglas Freeman were made parties plaintiff and later, by leave of the court, .an amended and supplemented bill was filed by the four parties against The Roland Park Company and the Maintenance Corporation. We will mean the latter in referring to the bill of complaint, unless the original one is particularly mentioned. Nearly ninety residents- of Roland Park filed petitions to be made parties defendants, but we suppose that if they were granted, as the docket entries state, those defendants simply adopted the answers, of the original defendants, as we do- not find either the orders or their answers in the record, and they do not appear to be necessary to the decision of this case. The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City was incorporated in 1891 and purchased a large number of acres of land, the most of which were then in Baltimore County. It proceeded to develop the land and it is sufficiently shown by uncontradicted evidence to permit us to say, without discussing the same, that it became an unusually attractive development which ranks amongst the highest to be found in this State and its reputation is well known far beyond its bounds. It is only necessary to examine the restrictions in the deeds to see that the efforts of all parties concerned were to have it a development which would be peculiarly desirable for residential purposes, .and which ..offered more than most suburban places did at that time for the comfort, health and pro *387 teetion of their residents. A number of plats were made and filed in the records of Baltimore County, the three with which we are specially concerned being those referred to in the opinion of Lrnun Feam, who decided th© ease below, as follows.: “Tn 1892 Plat Eo. 1, involving 116 acres of land, was recorded and the land was laid out in 427 lots. In 1901 Plat Eo. 2, affecting about 52 acres, was recorded, the land being divided into some 85 lots. In 1903 Plat Eo. 3, comprising 120 aeres and sub-divided into 192 lot$, was recorded. The present controversy involves more particularly those three plats, although the future of the remaining parts of Roland Park and of Guilford is, to some extent, involved in the outcome of this case.” After referring to Plats Eos. 4a., 5 and 6 and "of Guilford, giving the dates of record, the acreage and number of lots in each, he added: “The land embraced in all of these plats is contiguous, has: a combined area of some 752 acres, and, together, constitutes the admirable real estate development above referred to.” In a deed dated Alay 1, 1911, from The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City to Airs. Wehr, one of the plaintiffs, there was conveyed a lot on Plat Eo. S. That deed contained this: provision: “8. That the land hereby conveyed shall be liable annually for a proportionate amount of the cost of lighting and keeping in repairs the roads, lanes and paths (including sidewalks) shown on said Plat Eumber Three of Roland Park and said Addition thereto, of collecting and disposing of the garbage, ashes and rubbish on the land included in said plats, and of maintaining the sewmrage system of the land included in said plats, which said proportionate amount was by the aforesaid deed from the party of the first part to the said Maintenance Corporation, fixed at one hundred and eleven (111) thirty-three thousandths of the total annual cost thereof; said sum being payable quarterly by the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, to the said Maintenance Corporation, its *388 successors and assigns; provided that the amount to he so paid shall not exceed, in any one year, twenty cents per hundred square feet of the superficial area of the land hereby conveyed.” There was a proviso' following the above which we have not quoted, as it is not involved in this case. Paragraph 9 of the deed contains the following: “9. It is distinctly covenanted and agreed between the parties hereto that all the covenants and agreements above expressed shall be held to run with and bind the land hereby conveyed, and all subsequent owners and occupants thereof, until the first day of January, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty,, and the acceptance of this deed shall have the same effect and binding force upon the party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, as if the same were signed and sealed by the party of the second part; provided, however, that the covenants contained in the aforegoing paragraph numbered eight (8) shall be perpetual in their operation.” The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City conveyed to Michael P. McCormick by deed dated the 19th of October, 1896, a lot on Plat No. 1, Paragraph 8, of which deed contains the following: “8. And the said party of the second part does hereby agree for himself, his heirs and assigns, that after January 1st, 1898, the land hereby conveyed shall be liable annually for a proportionate amount of the cost of lighting and keeping the said streets in repair, and of maintaining the sewerage system of the land included in said Plat No. 1 of Roland Park, which said proportionate amount shall be sixty-two and one-half (62%) twenty-two thousandths of the total annual cost thereof; provided, however, that the amount to be paid-shall not exceed twenty-five cents per front foot per annum.” *389 The deeds under which Charles Willms and J. W. Freeman claim are for lots also on Plat No. 1, and it is admitted that the above paragraphs 8 and 9 in the Wehr deed are in all deeds for lots in Plats Nos. 2 and 3, and that in all deeds for lots on Plat No. 1 is Paragraph 8 above quoted from the McCormick deed. The maximum annual tax in the case of each of the plaintiffs is, according to the calculation o£ Judge Frank, as follows: “Wehr, $22.28; McCormick, $15.65; Freeman, $18.75, and Willms, $58.75” — the latter including parts of two lotsi. The maintenance tax, as it is spoken of in this case, and will he referred to as such, was payable to and declared by The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City until 1909, at which time the Roland Park Roads and Maintenance Corporation was formed and the former conveyed to' the latter all its rights in the beds of the highways on the various plats, the sewerage system and the right to collect and distribute the several maintenance funds. In 1912 The Roland Park Company succeeded to the rights of The Roland Park Company of Baltimore City, and we will use that name unless we have occasion to distinguish between the two companies. Judge Frank said in his opinion : “While in the early days of each plat a certain portion of the maintenance tax had been devoted to the lighting of the streets, Baltimore County, prior to the annexation, and since annexation, Baltimore City, has borne the entire cost of this lighting and no part of the maintenance fund for a number of years has been applied to this purpose. On October 1st, 1921, Baltimore City took over the operation of the sewerage system of Roland Park and, although prior to> that date this system had been maintained out of the maintenance tax, since that date no portion of the maintenance tax has been expended upon the sewerage system.” On, the 8th of June, 1922, the Roland Park Roads and Maintenance Corporation and The Roland Park Company conveyed to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1) all of the rights of those companies in and to all of the streets, *390 roads, avenues and Park Lane on Plats Ros. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the properties of the Roland Park Company, reserving and excepting any lanes or paths as laid out thereon (except P'ark Lane) and excepting certain portions of roads referred to which had been previously vacated, and subject to certain rights of other companies] mentioned; (2) all of the sewers, both storm and water drains and sanitary sewers, etc.; (3) the sewerage disposal field used in connection therewith. The deed also reserves to the Maintenance Corporation the right to collect the maintenance charges and expressly states that it does, not convey any rights or interests in the paths or lanes of Roland Park (except Park Lane), “which paths and lanes, are separate and distinct from the streets,, road® and avenues herein referred to; and which lanes in Roland Park correspond generally to what are known as alleys in the older part of Baltimore City, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, by the acceptance of this deed, does not undertake or assume any obligation with regard to the upkeep' and repair of said paths and lanes, which duty Was assumed by The Roland Park Road's and Maintenance Corporation.” It is further provided 'that by the acceptance of the deed, the Mayor and City Council “does not assume the duties of repair, upkeep and attention to the sidewalks and sidewalk lawns in Plats 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Roland Park, which duty was imposed upon The Roland Park Roads and Maintenance Corporation by the deeds from The Roland Park Company immediately above referred to; and nothing in this deed .shall be construed to impair or affect the duty of The Roland Park Roads and Maintenance Corporation to repair and maintain and care for tire said sidewalks and sidewalk lawns, and trees and shrubbery planted therein, or related thereto.” The Mayor and City Council also agreed that the Maintenance Corporation “shall and does subject to all city ordinances; reserve the right to repair, maintain and upkeep said sidewalks, sidewalk lawns and trees and shrubbery and1 to maintain any necessary control over1 the same *391 for said purpose1 as, fully as if this deed had not been executed.” The theory of the hill is that inasmuch as the city furnishes the lights, has taken over the streets and roads,, and the sewerage, the plaintiffs are no longer under obligation to pay the maintenance tax, and the appellants also contend that The Roland Park Company or the Maintenance, Corporation never did do all that they or either of them undertook to do in consideration of the payment of the tax. The evidence is to the effect that before Roland Park was annexed to the city, Baltimore County paid or contributed to the payment of the lights and repairs of the roads and streets, and it is contended that as The Roland Park Company had failed to do what it is claimed it contracted to do, it had no right to recover the maintenance tax, regardless of other reasons which may he advanced. It is perfectly clear that the .restrictions,, provisions and covenants in the deeds, in so far as they affect the question with which we are now concerned, were not intended alone for The Roland Park Company, or the Maintenance Corporation, but were for the common advantage and benefit of all persons purchasing lots on these plats. As the,.original hill was filed by Mrs. Wehr alone, and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Ho. 1 is a copy of the> deed to her, we will first consider it with reference to the provisions in 8 and 9 of that deed, which are also in the; other deeds for lots on Plats Aos. 2 and 3. As we have, seen, the property was conveyed subject, to the covenants and agreements of the grantee set out in the, deed. It was agreed that the land conveyed “shall be liable annually for a proportionate amount of the cost of lighting and keeping in repair the roads, lanes and paths (including sidewalks)” shown on Plat Ho. 3 and the addition thereto, of collecting and disposing of the garbage, ashes and rubbish on the land included in said plats, and of maintaining the sewerage system in said plats. Al *392 though, the land was then in Baltimore Oounty, it must he remembered that the local laws of that county provided for many things in connection with the roads, streets, garbage, sewerage;, etc., in a way that was exceptional in the counties, as will he seen by a reference to> Article 3 of the Code of Public Local Laws of 1888. For example, sections 243-249 of that article gave the County Commissioners poAver and authority to grade, regulate and keep. in repair the footways or sidewalks on all open .and traveled streets, avenues and alleys in the county, according to and in conformity with such rules and regulations as were recognized in and provided for in article 4 of Code of Public Local Laws, title, City of Baltimore, and the ordinance® of the Mayor and City Council passed in conformity therewith. Provision was made for ascertaining the costs and expenses and .assessing pro rata on the ground binding and fronting on said footways and sidewalks, making them a lien thereon and collecting the amounts as provided for the collection of other assessments for the opening of streets, avenues or* alleys in Baltimore Oounty. That Code was adopted before the Boland Park Company was incorporated, but the provisions were continued in substance in the re-enactment of article 3 by chapu ter 495 of Acts of 1908 and in the local Code of 1916 compiled by Hon. T. Scott Offutt and made evidence by chap. 16 of Acts of 1916. We speak of snch matters to explain the surroundings of the parties Avhen the covenants involved in this case were made, for, although we are mindful that as a general rule covenants in deeds imposing restrictions and charges on land® are construed most liberally in favor of the covenantors, in construing them we must consider the circumstances .and conditions which surrounded the parties, and not overlook the fact that the restrictions 'and provisions were not intended for the benefit of the grantor alone, hut mainly for that of the grantee and those similarly situated Avith him, nor were the payments to he made under the maintenance *393 tax specially for the benefit of the grantor, but they were to be used for the benefit of the grantees. Then while the plaintiffs seem to have been influenced in asking the relief prayed for hy the fact that Roland Park is now within the corporate limits of the city, and the claim that the city is compelled to perform all that the. covenants provided for, we find that the county was authorized to do most of the major things which the city is now doing, and yet for a quarter of -a century or more the grantees and covenantors in those deeds had acquiesced in the Roland Park Company and the Maintenance Corporation doing practically wliat they are now doing excepting in so far as they have been relieved by the city in the past year or two, since the annexation of 1918. The county had been furnishing lights for the streets;, and funds for the repair of roads and streets. The city has in addition taken over the sewerage system. It would be difficult to believe that the plaintiffs, or any of them, when they got their deeds, did not know what the county was doing in. the way of lighting .and repairing the streets, and there would seem to be only one reason for not knowing it, if they desire, to' inform themselves of existing conditions, and that is, utter indifference and carelessness on their part. When the holders, of lots on Plats Nos. 2 and 3 agreed that the covenants in Paragraph 8 of their deeds should be perpetual in their operation, they must have known that there would be changes from, time; to time in a development such as Roland Park and that the, money contributed by them, could still be used to their great advantage, supplementing what the! public authorities, did. Under present conditions, when labor and materials are so much higher than when Roland Park was, incorporated, they knew that the Maintenance Corporation could not pay in full for lighting, keeping up the sewerage plant and the repairing of the streets with the money it was getting, or could get at the rate fixed from the property owners on the different plats-. Although the development grew and demands became greater *394 by reason thereof, ithe value of the maintenance tax has become much less. Neither The Roland Park Company nor the Maintenance Corporation covenanted to light and repair the streets, or keep- up' the sewerage, etc., in the event of . there not being sufficient funds received through the maintenance fax. Those companies, during the times they were respectively acting, have collected the money from the lot owners on the several plats and disbursed it, hut are not required- to make up- deficiencies. The Maintenance Corportion only had a capital stock of one hundred dollars, its officers (excepting the superintendent) and directors served without pay, and simply employed the necessary clerical and other help. It is shown that twelve out of the sixteen directors of that company are chosen by the Civic League, which is composed of residents of Roland Park, any one of whom can become a member of the league upon paying a nominal annual fee. We have thus referred at length to the surrounding circumstances because, as Judge Milleb, said in Roberts v. Bonaparte, 73 Md. 191, 204: “Courts, in the construction of contracts, look to the, language employed, the subject matter and the surrounding circumstances. They are never shut out from the same light which the parties enjoyed when the contract was executed, and in that view -they are entitled to place themselves in the same situation as the parties who made the contract, so as to view' the circumstances as they viewed them' and so as to judge of the meaning of -the words and of the correct application of the language to the things described.” When the surrounding circumstances are considered, we-cannot agree with the construction placed on the covenants by the learned -solicitors for the plaintiffs. The- covenants are not indivisible, and because some of the major things to he-done with the funds derived from the maintenance tax are now done by (the city, is no sufficient reason for declaring these covenants invalid and of no effect, especially as it, is *395 proven there are a number of things being done supplementary to the work for which the tax was agreed to be paid, and some of which are actually a part of that work, beyond question. Whether or not. conditions will ever exist that will make all of this tax unnecessary, and if so, when, is not for the court to predict, but this record utterly fails to satisfy us that such conditions are now present. The maximum ho. be paid is fixed, and when it is shown that mere is collected than can be properly used under the covenants, the time for reduction may then properly be considered. It is shown that some of the tax is still being used on the lanes and paths, sidewalks and sidewalk lawns, and for minor repairs on the roadways outside of sidewalks and sidewalk lawns. The lanes, and paths, sidewalks and sidewalk lawns were expressly excepted from the deed to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. This is not simply a question between the grantor and its grantees, as to whether there was a dedication, but the public authorities cannot be compelled to keep the lanes and paths, sidewalks, etc., in repair until they have seen fit toi accept the dedication of them. In Sanderson v. Baltimore, 135 Md. 509, 520-521, Judge Burke cited many cases to that effect, as. did Judge Briscoe in Baltimore v. Canton Company, 124 Md. 620, and in Ogle v. Cumberland, 90 Md. 59, the principle is strikingly illustrated. When such provisions are in a, deed to a city as are in the deed to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore of June 8, 1922, it would be difficult to understand how it can be said that the city was under obligations' to keep those lanes, etc., in repair, and it is clear that it is not. The covenant- in the Wehr deed expressly uses the term “keeping in repair the roads, lanes and paths (including sidewalks) shown on said Plat "Number Three of Roland Park and said addition thereon, of collecting and disposing of the garbage, ashes and rubbish,” etc., and the deeds on Plat No. 1 include '“keeping the said streets, in repair.” There is in the Wehr deed the language which itself includes lanes, paths, side *396 walks and rubbish,” and while in the McCbrmick deed on Plat No. 1 the general term “keeping the streets in repair” is used, it would undoubtedly, in the absence of some exception or provision, include lane®, paths and sidewalks. In 13 R. C. L. 18, par. 6, the generally accepted meaning is concisely given. It is there said, “Generically, the term ‘street includes sidewalks. More specifically, however, it has bean said that what constitutes the sidewalk as contra-distinguished from the street must be determined from the facts. It is usually recognized as that pant of the street on each side thereof which has been arranged for foot passengers, and is- not intended for use by vehicles and horsemen, and may embrace all that portion of a street- from the building line to the curbing, including grass plats or parking b&tween the walk proper and the curb.” (Italics- o-urs.) As we have -seen above-, the City of Baltimore has the p-owe-r and has p-as-sed ordinances regelating -sidewalks, and while it may first repair them, in order to avoid suits for damages and for the comfort- of the public usingi them, it ultimately requires the owners of the- adjoining properties to- pay for the repairs, done by it, just as- the county could do before the annexation of Roland Park. The city is not required to ornament the grass- plots with trees, shrubbery, etc., but it oan undoubtedly authorize that to be done, if not an obstruction toi those having the right- to- use sidewalks-, and it can require the -owners of -adjacent property to keep' it in proper condition, so- as- to avoid suits- for damages- following injuries to- passers-by. In Townley v. City of Huntington, 68 W. Va. 574, 70 S. E. 368, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 118, the Supreme Co-urt of West Virginia said in the head notes prepared by Judge Robinson: “A space within the bounds of a city street, set apart betwen the ¡sidewalks and the roadway for1 a grass plot, isi a part of the s-treet, for the neglect of the safe condition of which the- city may be held liable.” In the case o-f Frostburg v. Wineland, 98 Md. 239, the Court granted affirmative relief to an -owner of adjoining *397 property to prevent the municipality from cutting down a shade tree standing in or1 near the curb. A good deal was said at the argument about cleaning snow off the pavement being part of the work done by the Ma-uafenanca Corporation, and the appellants contended that it did not come within the covenants. The bill was not- filed to prevent what, was: claimed to be a diversion of the fund, and if it had been, a court, of equity would not have felt justified in restraining the use of some of the money for such a purpose as- cleaning off snow and ice from, the s-idewalks. The property owners are required by the ordinances of Baltimore to clean off the snow, and are liable to- be punished if they do not. It is not only greatly to- the comfort of the residents, but it is necessary for their protection, that some o-ne clean it off. Show and ice, if allowed to accumulate, or to remain on the streets, for any length -of time, do> injure the streets and do cause defects- in them which have to be repaired. It is not straining the: meaning of the covenant to bold that cleaning the snow off the s-idewalks is aiding in keeping them- in repair and it certainly might well be regarded as within the meaning of the term “rubbish” in the covenants- in the deeds on Plats- Nos. 2 and 3. When the trees- shed their leaves or limbs are broken off during storms¡, or occasionally a tree is- blown down or the roots of trees- get under the -sidewalks, repairs are often necess-ary. So, with the drains- and gptters, along the sidewalks,, which become filled u,p and obstructed by leaves, root-s of trees- and other things coming from, what the-adjacent owners are permitted by the city to have on their-sidewalks, it cannot properly be said that removing such things is not within the- spirit and intent of these covenants:. The construction placed on the covenants by the representatives- of the covenantors for so many years can properly be taken into- consideration, and it would be a, narrow construction of tire covenants if -the use of the funds agreed to be paid was to be limited to what is expressly mentioned, in *398 stead of applying it tq uses evidently intended by those entering into .the covenants. . We entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned judge who decided this case below, and were tempted to simpjly adopt his opinion in toto, instead of, as we have done, quoting freely from it. We have set out at some length the covenants made, by the purchasers of lots on the respective plats, we have stated quite fully the circumstances under which they were made, and the present conditions, and we have declined to limit the construction of the covenants to such an extent as to malee them useless from the beginning, and to do great injustice to those who have paid what they agreed to- pay, as interpreted by their own representatives. We find no legal objection to tbe covenants as originally made, and no equitable ground for declaring them wholly invalid because of present conditions, and hence will affirm the decree of the lower court without further prolonging this opinion Decree affirmed, the appellants to pay the costs.