From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rinaldi v. Tana

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Mar 5, 1969
250 A.2d 533 (Md. 1969)

Summary

In Rinaldi there was evidence of express animosity, and in McLung-Logan there was evidence of an evil and spiteful motive.

Summary of this case from Schaefer v. Miller

Opinion

[No. 120, September Term, 1968.]

Decided March 5, 1969.

CONTRACTS — Malicious Interference With Contractual Rights — Compensatory And Punitive Damages. The Court held that the testimony and exhibits supported the trial judge's finding that the appellant purposefully and maliciously for his own unjustified and selfish reasons had induced his sister not to perform the contract to sell her share of stock. p. 545

Decided March 5, 1969.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (MOORE, J.).

Action filed by Lucy R. Tana and Doris R. Harris, sisters, against Nicholas E. Rinaldi for interfering with their contractual rights. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Nicholas E. Rinaldi appeals.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and MARBURY, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.

Francis W. Taylor for appellant.

Joseph A. Lynott, Jr., for appellees.


Three sisters entered into a contract to sell their identical holdings of stock in a family coal and fuel oil corporation for an agreed price. One sister refused to perform the contract and the prospective purchaser, who had been ready, willing and able to accept and pay for the stock of all the sisters, refused to vary the contract and accept and pay for the stock of the two sisters who tendered it against payment of two-thirds of the purchase price.

The two tendering sisters then sued a brother for having maliciously induced the breach of the contract to sell the stock. Judge Moore, hearing the case without a jury, found that the brother, not being privileged to do so, purposefully and maliciously for his own unjustified and selfish reasons had induced his sister not to perform the contract and therefore was guilty of tortious interference with contract rights, 4 Restatement Torts § 766; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co., 107 Md. 556, 561, et seq.; Stannard v. McCool, 198 Md. 609; Horn v. Seth, 201 Md. 589; McGinnis v. Chance, 247 Md. 393, 401, and liable in compensatory and punitive damages.

The testimony and exhibits offer sound support for Judge Moore's findings of fact, he correctly applied the controlling law, and the damages awarded were appropriate.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Rinaldi v. Tana

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Mar 5, 1969
250 A.2d 533 (Md. 1969)

In Rinaldi there was evidence of express animosity, and in McLung-Logan there was evidence of an evil and spiteful motive.

Summary of this case from Schaefer v. Miller

permitting punitive damages in a case involving tortious interference with a contract where the defendant "purposely and maliciously for his own unjustified and selfish reasons had induced his sister not to perform the contract. . . ."

Summary of this case from Wasserman v. Kay

relying upon Section 766A, court found tortious interference when plaintiff's subcontractor failed to perform its part of a contract thereby rendering plaintiff's performance more costly

Summary of this case from All. Fmly. Fds. v. Cap. Carb., N10C-10-313 JRS CCLD
Case details for

Rinaldi v. Tana

Case Details

Full title:RINALDI v . TANA ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Mar 5, 1969

Citations

250 A.2d 533 (Md. 1969)
250 A.2d 533

Citing Cases

Schaefer v. Miller

See, e.g., Siegman v. Equitable Trust Co., supra, 267 Md. at 314, 297 A.2d 758 (conversion of checking…

Hare v. Family Publications Service, Inc.

Assuming then the existence of uncontradicted allegations of injury caused by an intentional inducement to a…