SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13159, 4 July 1908, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS

Mr Justice Denniston sat in Chambers yesterday morning, and disposed of the matters set down. Probates were granted of the wills of F. 8. Joseph (Mr Russell) and R. C. James (Mr Flesher) and letters of administration were- granted to the next of kin of T. Carter (Mr Bishop), Emma Grace McFarlane (Mr Perry), John Riley (Mr Bishop), and W. Chambers (Mr Helmore). Mr Hoban appeared in support of a motion to rescind an order in the case of Russell v. Scott and another. Tho application was granted, subject to cause- being shown within seven days. A changing order absolute wae made in the case of tho South Chrietchurch Estate Company v. Bowden, on the application of Mr Dougall. A summons for security in Suro v. Peacock (Mr Fibber) was dismissed wua costs. A guardian ad litem was appointed in tho case White v. Whittal, upon the application of Mr Izard. Motions for commission re A. Louiseon, deceased (Mr Hunter), and A. Mitchell, deceased (Mr Rhodes) were referred to the Registrar. I Upon the application of Mr Ueswick, the decree was settled in tho case of Wales v. Wales. Mr Sinithson appeared in support of a petition for leave to sell land in the estate of Thomas Danks, deceased. The order was mado as prayed. Tho Registrar's report re Geo. Napier deceased, motion for executor's commission, was confirmed. JUDGMENT. His Honour gave judgment in the case of R. W. Chapman and W. Field v. John Keys and Patrick Keys, a claim for specific performance of a contract to purchase about 300 acres cf land in Hawke's Bay at the price of £25 10s per acre. The plaintiffs' land formed part of a block which the plaintiffs held under an agreement for sale and purchase from a Mr Macfarlano. who held tho title, birt that titls was encumbered by a mortgage and tho land sold to the plaintiffs, and other lands, to secure repayment of a large sum of money with various and complicated covenants and provisions. Hjs Honour, in his judgment, said that the defendants were informed of tho existence of the mortgage, and of the terms of the plaintiffs' agreement, but ho was satisfied that tho defendants had no stieh information as to the plaintiffs' title as they were entitled to have before they could bo held to have given up or waived any rights they were entitled to under their agreement. As to the respective rights of the parties under the contract, he submitted at the. hearing ho had no doubt. Where two persons had entered into the relation of vendor and purchaser by duly signing a contract for sale of land, there was an implied obligation on the vendor to show a good title. The plaintiff could not, or at least did not, undertake to secure the approval of the mortgagees and Mr Macfarlane to the. sale, or an undertaking to givo a clear title upon payment of tho purchase money to Macfarlane, and the defendants were therefore entitled to rescind, and did rescind the contract. They could not, therefore, be compelled to carry it jnt, and were entitled, in terms of the coun-ter-claim, to a decree for rescission of contract and return of tho report, £250, with interest as prayed, and 40s damages, with costs at per scale. Judgment -would bo given accordingly. At the hearing Mr Beswick appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harper, with him Mr Gressou, for the defendants.