LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1306, 8 December 1911, Page 6

LAW REPORTS.

4 . SUPREME COURT. INSURANCE NEVEII EFFECTED. COMI'ANV NOT TO III.AMB. TICK FIRi: IN ADAMS TKRIUCB, Wlii'l.licr lliito v/nii mi cxj>rw.(!fl, or im|.ll"il ii K rt.|.in.-iil, l/i Itmiiiti Mm-i-ii n pro|>itrt.}'.i)wni,r iiml iin Initirfitim. «»irip;uiy win Urn iKijnl. lint Chief .lii!;tlw! (Kir I!ol»tirl. Kltiiil.) liiwl Ui il<t:|ilii in (i io/tvml iiitliiiiißiil ilcllvtT.,l in lh>! Hiiprcriin '-'oiirt yit'.tcrd!iy. Tim |*tilirii \» Urn imlioii va-u; JJiivid O'llnrd, lidiiii-r, lul'i ol DaiiMvirkti. l.iil now of .Mi,<-.1/rl.on, plaintiff, ami Hi.) \'M.»r\n Iri.-.urai.™ r>,.. \M., <l<'f<Ti(lant. Thft claim wim lor J:7W nllc«</d l<. In! dun nin|i;r iiiiiiiriiiK'.ii |K)llfii*. At tin! In-illi>11; Mr, I-:, i, I'llzzililion fti.|M!iiri!i| for lli<; pliiiiillff, itinl Mr, '1 , . y<mti« for III". ili-f<'ii>liwit oMiiirf.ny. It iiiiiii!iiri*l from l.li<- ywA+'tinvfi nt tho li<-.nrlni? tlmt tin- iiliiintifl, f/'llara, wot Hid owner of lour lioiivi |iro|.t:rti':» in Aduimi Ten VMS Wi-WmUm, hti-Auu p"r-ch.-LS.rd Illflll fIOIII i;-H-.::OII Jif*. T«O of tin- lioiii/fli (iiinm tlcstiv/yfit) by fir«) tintl Ijccn iimuK-il (ii« for Ji375 and J3i'i ri-!!i/i!i:l.iv(!ly, l/itli v,'ltli lh« Qu':':n'*hind liiHiiniiic; Company, Ltd., for which KasHon liroH. lia/1 a<:t';tj us »iil>-aK'"W"'. 11l April, lillfl, Kiiw/xi Uroa. dwidwl to ruKien lliu nm-ncy of thy Qii'-'-nsil.-ind Compo.ny and bcßonic tin- nni-nU for Uio Vio oria Jn.sur;in<» Company, Ltd., • wliobo Wellington business was managed by and Co. It was then arranged that tlie business influenced by Easson Bros, should follow Urn apency to tho Victoria Company. Early in September, 1010, Easfion Bros, came to think that it was possib'.o that some insurances might bavo lapsed iiv the Queensland Office, without being transferred to Die Victoria Office. In order to guard against any risk of any of tho properties not being covered, they prepared a list of policies (controlled by their agency) that liad expired, or were to expire between September, 1909, and June, 1911. This was handed to tho Victoria Insurance Company somo time ra December, 1910, and it was claimed that tho company "expressedly or imphedly agreed to cover all these properties, included in the list were the-policies covering the two properties in Adams lerraov which policies expired in JSoveinbcr, 1910. Tho houses were destroyed bv fire on January 8, 1911, the owner held no cover, and the .Victoria Company declined to pay tho insurance. _ . In giving judgment yesterday, his Honour said: "The fact that on tho list there were certain properties, no less than already insured,. shows that the list could not have been deemed a request to insure all the properties in tho list. Further, no name was given as tho owner of tho property in Adams Terrace. In my opinion, therefore, the- plaintiff, cannot succeed. It is exceedingly unfortunate ho should bo placed in this, position, but I do not sco that any blame can rest on tho defendant company. . . . There was no agreement between Easson and tho company that the company was to insure any of tuo properties that Easson forwarded to them. In fact, Mr. Easson properly says that the company had a right to refuse any of tho properties that ho might have asked them'to insure. Here there was no proper recjuest, no owner mentioned, no details given, and the usual courso of business botwecn the parties of having a proposal signed was never carried out, and no cover of any kind was given. I cannot, in face of those facts, hold that the company is responsible oi that any insurance was ever effected. ... I am of opinion that judgment must be given for the defendant company with tho usual costs according to scale." ■ MISTAKE RECTIFIED. COMPLICATIONS AFTER A SALE. A rather involved case was that of Taylor v. Parkinson and Blyth, reserved judgment in which was delivered by the Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) in tho Supreme Court yesterday. The main question was whether the. fondants were !>ound by u contract to buy the equity of redemption, which contract, they stated, had been signed in error. As second mortgagees they had been under the.impression that they were bidding for the property itself. That impression had been formed from the fact that the auctioneer had stated that ho would tako his bids for what tho property was worth per acre, and would then deduct tho amount of the first mortgage'from the total price, requiring the purchaser to pay the balanco and take over the land, subject to tho first mortgage. The action concerned a block of land near Ohau, in the Manawatu district comprising altogether somo 2335 acres, and known as Block SL, Pukehou, Sections-1. 2, 3, 3a, 4, and 5. ■ Tho parties to the notion were John Henry Taylor, farmer of Muhunoa, Ohau, plaintiff, anil 'Walter Fox Parkinson and Harry Alexander Foster Blythi farmers, of Ataah.ua, Canterbury, defendants. At the hearing, Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., with him Mr. G. 11. Fell, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Stringer, K.C., with him Mr. M. S. Brown, for the defendants.

Tn nsking for accounts to be taken by tho Court, Taylor alleged that ■ nntil Df - comber 21, 1911), ho was the owner of the 2335 acres mentioned above, and that there were, on that date, threo mortgages, namely, (1) to J. R. lIT)onald, to Becuro i<753 18s.; (2) to defendants (Parkinson and Blyth), to 6ecure Xlisß 19s. 3d., and interest; (3) to Dalgcty and Co., Ltd., to secure the amount then duo on enrrent account and further advances. Tho lastnamed mortgage had since been released. The mortgage to Parkinson and Blyth contained a power of sale in tho event of default, non-observance of conditions, etc. Taylor made such default as entilled Parkinson and Blyth to exercise this power of sale. Parkinson and Blyth asked the Registrar of the Supremo Court at Wellington to conduct the sale, and informed him that the sum, which they estimated to bo tho value of the equity of redemption of the land, was .£2600. Parkinson bought the land at auction (s-übject to the mortgage to M'Ponald, so Taylor alleged) for .£9337 9s. 6d., bcin? at the rate of £i per acre. Parkinson signed a contract stating that it was tho "equity of redemption" which ho had purchased, nnd this was also. signed by the auctioneer as agent for tho vendors. Subsequently Parkinson and Blythe stated that tho document (re "the equity of redemption") that was signed by Parkinson and tho auctioneer after tho ealo was signed by them in a common mistake, and was wholly void in effect They treated it as nullity. ■ The case was complicated by a transaction that followed.

His Honour was of opinion that the sale was a statutory sale, and that as (acting for the Registrar) thero was a mistake mado by Mr. Pcrritt and by Mr. Parkinson, in signing the document, relief could be granted in consequence of such mistake.

After reviewing the various other phases of the case, his Honour said: "In my opinion tho position must bo that tho Court must treat the Bale to Parkinson as a Balo at the amount that he stated to the Registrar tho property was valued at, namely, the sum of JE2600, and that the plaintiff is entitled to have an acoonnt taken of tho amount between himself and the mortgagees on that footing."