LAW OF MORTGAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 251, 22 October 1926, Page 8

LAW OF MORTGAGE.

MORTGAGOR'S LIABILITY.

APPEAL COURT'S DECISION,

MISUNDERSTANDIN.G EXPLAINED.

(By Telegraph—Special to "Star.")

WELLINGTON, this day

The sense of the Appeal Court's recent judgment, in the casp, Public Trustee v. Bank of New Zealand, was altered by the use of the indefinite instead of the definite article in the filling of the text, the Chief Justice having been made to appear as saying that " 'A , mortgagor was not personally liable under 'a' mortgage."

The message should have reported his Honor as having saidHhat "'The' mortgagor was not personally liable under 'the' mortgage (that is, the particular mortgage being considered by the Court), and that such liability would be inconsistent with the whole scheme of 'the' mortgage.. The bank, therefore, was not entitled to its claim.

The "Evening Post's" report of the judgment reads: After reviewing the facts of the case exhaustively, the Appeal Court, comprising his Honor the Chief Justice and their Honors Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Justice Alpers, stated in their reserved judgment that the question in the originating summons was answered by the fact that the memorandum of mortgage (No. 53,749) did not contain or imply a covenant on the part of the deceased to pay to the defendant, the Bank of New Zealand, upon demand made on her, all and every eunis of money intended thereby to be secured by way of charge upon the lands therein comprised and described.