A LAND TRANSACTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 48, 25 August 1904, Page 6

A LAND TRANSACTION.

JUDGMENT IN THB APPEAL COURT. Judgment was given by the Court of •Appeal to-day in the case of W. B. V. Pearce (appellant) v. John Stevens, Herbert Austin, and Frederick S. Easton (respondents) rotating to the purchase of 8910 acres of land from the Assets Realisation Board. Tho Chief Justice in his' judgment said that tho agreement entered into by respondents to purchase the land was mado on 4th February, 1903, and the final paymenl of the purchase-money was not to be made until 31st March, 1908. It was, provided .by section 13 of the agreement that if tho purchasers at any time should sell "any part of the property at a prico which tho Board should approve and should pay to Hjo Board the full prico or prices at which the sale was made, tho Board Avould join in a transfer or conveyance to their purchasers or nominocs of the portions so sold. Respondenbs mado an agreement with appellant on 13th August, 1903, in which they purported to agree to le«se for six years and five months from Ist September, 1903, certain portions of tho land which they had purchased — about 2219 acim It was to be provided in the lease that the lessee was bound to purchase the freehold of tl>e land at the price mentioned in tho schedule. It was clear, his Honour went on to say, that respondents had no power to mako that lease. They wore jiot entitled to make the lease under the agreement with the Board, and the lewo wa« for a term beyond the data

mentioned for tbe payment of the pur-.chaso-money. Further, the respondents had no power to demand from their vendors a conveyance of the property unless the Assets Board agreed to the price, and there was no agreement to the price nor to the contract until at all events Bth October, 1904. On 25th August, 1903, appellant notified respondents that he was induced to sign tho agreement* through misrepresentation as to the state of tho land, and he declined to proceed farther in the matter of .completing the agreement. The respondents proceeded againat appellant to carry out his agreement. His Honour held that the reason given by appellant for declining to be bound by the contract would not prevent his repudiation of the contract being effective. The appellant had a right to pub an end to the contract. His Honour held that the appeal should be allowed with costs on the middle scaJe. As to. the costs in the Court below, as the appellant failed in his charge of misrepresentation he was not, in the Chief Justice's opinion, entitled to his costs in the Lower Court. Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justico Donniston, and Mr. Justice Chapman also agreed that the appeal, which was against a judgment of Mr. Justice 1 Cooper, should be allowed. The appeal was therefore allowed with costs on the middle scale. Mr. Treadwell, for respondents, obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Counil.

Messrs. Harcourt and Co. will hold a enlo of household furniture and effoot* to-morrow (Friday), tho 26th iiwt., at 2 p.m. sharp, tit their roomi, 48, Lambtonnway. Tho samo firm will 'also soil at ♦ > Chamber of Commorco on Tuesday, 30lh inxt., at 2.30 p.m., two sections situato at tho corner of Home-street and Eliza-beth-slreot, near Kont-torrace, having a frontnge of 52ft 6»n to both strooU by a depth of 112 ft, with thrco now sovenroomed residences thereon. A number of other properties will also bo offered. -