COAL MINING CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18263, 23 December 1924, Page 5

COAL MINING CASE.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FAILS. Yesterday his Honour Mr Justice Adams gave judgment for the defendant in the case Francis Rcdpath, coa! merchant, v. Mann, Einge and Co., a claim for £3950, balance of purchase money due under an agreement .by Redpath of a license held by him to forfeit an area of 345 acres adjoining the Blackball Coal Company's property, on the West Coast. The Minister of Mines withheld his consent to the • ssigninent, and the company held that it was entitled to.repudiate the contract, as the assignment was not made in a reasonable time.' His Honour said that he was not disposed to agree with Mr M. J. Gresson, for plaintiff, that as no date was fixed in tho contract, time was not the essence of the contract, and could niado essential only by a notice giving a reasonable time after ■ its date for completion. Plaintiff was bound to do all acts necessary 011 his part to complete the contract within /'a reasonable time, and if, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he had failed to do that, and was not ready to complete the contract, defendant was not under any obligation to give him further time, but might repudiate tho contract and rocover tho deposit. A reasonable time had to ba ascertained by reference- to all the facts and circumstances; Repudiation by the company 011 November 9 was justified by plaintiff's breach of a stipulation to completo within a reasonable time. In regard to plaintiff's statement that ho had been protected- from forfeiture for not complying with the conditions qt tho license, his Honour said that whatever may have passed between the Minister and plaintiff ,the protection afforded would be too doubtful to force upon a purchaser. He did not propose to go into the question of the Minister's 'powers further than to 'observo that the proposition that he had- power to dispense with tho performance of the conditions of a license, and to grant protection against forfeiture'for future breaches, was somewhat startling*. In any case, a purchaser copld not; be asked to rely upon a mero. verbal promise in the course of a conversation. Tho liability to forfeiture existed on November 9th, and furnished another ground for the repudiation on that day, plaintiff being unable to make a good title. action for specific performance, it wSs not sufficient for plaintiff to show that at some time prior to the hearing he had a good title. He must aver and prove that at the time of the issue of the writ he was, as it had been put, ready, prompt and eager to complete the contract, and that involved an avessment that he had or could procure a good title to the property; but in the present case the license had bsen determined by effluxion of time, and the renewal, which was in - '" law a new license, was for a term and on conditions to which defendant had never been invited to consent. Plaintiff's claim failed, and defendant was entitled to an order and judgment in a counterclaim that plaintiff shoiild be ordered to join with Sir George Clifford in withdrawing the sum of £3950 in a joint account and paying it to the company and for the return of £SO deposit. Costs were given for defendant according to scale, with £ls 15s for secoiyl day of trial and disbursements and witnesses's expenses. His Honour certified for second counsel, and allowed two days at £ls 15s a day.

At tho heating, Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr Upham, appeared for plain tiff, and Mr-Myers, K.C., with him Mr Sim, for defendant.