PROPERTY DEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 73, 27 March 1931, Page 7

PROPERTY DEAL

COURT OF APPEAL CASE

A dispute over a property engaged the attention of the Court of Appeal yesterday. His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) presided, and there were also on the Bench their Honours Mr. Justice Eeed, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith* The facts, as set out in tho statements of claim and defence in the Supreme Court action,' were that by contract in writing, dated 20th December, 1929, Henry and James Boyle (defendants in the Court below) agreed to purchase from Lovelock (plaintiff in the action), 2453 acres of land at Kirikixiroa at £.9 an acre. The defendants, however, on 17th February, 1930, by letter wholly renounced the contract and absolutely refused to perform the •contract, as a result of which. Lovelock brought the action in the Supreme Court, asking that the defendants be ordered to perform specifically the contract. Tho reasons given by the defendants for refusing to complete the purchase were: (1) That the contract was made subject to a condition that •the Public Trustee should consent to tho sale, and that that condition had not been fulfilled; (2) that under the contract they could not be required to tnke over the mortgages which contained covenants binding the mortgagor to obtain from a purchaser or new owner eitch >a deed of covenant as that described.

It was held by Mr. Justice Herdman •flint the defendants agreed to purchase m equity of redemption; they, coninicU'dto take the property subject •to the existing mortgages. His Honour siiid he had given careful consideration to all the facts and circumstances, and he was unable to discover anything ■which entitled the two Boyles to be released from their bargain. Judgment iv.'is given for the plaintiff, and the defendants were ordered, to specifically perform the contract. Mr. A. T. Donnelly (Christehurch), ttith him Mr. L. W. Gee, appeared for Ihc appellants,'and Mr. A. H. Johnson (Auckland), with him Mr. H. Gillis, appeared for the respondent. After legal argument had been leard the Court reserved its decision.