DEAL IN PROPERTY

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 146, 22 June 1934, Page 5

DEAL IN PROPERTY

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS

Alternative claims for. £1300 were made in the Supreme Court yesterday by Georgo Calder, engineer, against Frank Holdsworth, solicitor, and Alfred Eichardson Meek, Robert Ellis Harding, George Colcman Phillips, and Alan Walter Free, barristers and solicitors.

Mr. Justice Blair was on the Bench. Air. S. A. Wiren appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. H. F. O'Leary for Holdsworth, and Mr. D. E. Hoggard for the other defendants. '

The case was first heard last March, when his Honour made an order adding the four last-named defendants to the action. .

Iv his amended statement of claim \ the plaintiff said that on November 18, 1930, he was the- owner of a property in Molesworth Street, subject to a mortgage for £450. The value of the property, apart from the mortgage, was £1750. On November 18 he agreed with Riverside Estate,- Ltd., to exchange his property for a property at Taita. He employed Holdsworth.as his solicitor to advise him whether he should enter into the contract. The

plaintiff alleged that Holdsworth acted negligently in .advising him that heeould safely sign the contract and in omitting to explain the possibility of the company being unable to carry out it's part of the contract. He also alleged that Holdsworth, by making proper inquiry, would have ascertained ithat the company was experiencing difficulty in continuing its undertaking and was acquiring the Molesworth Street property for the sole purpose of raising funds. On December 10, 1930, the plaintiff executed a memorandum of transfer in Holdsworth's presence and on his advice, and on the same day the company mortgaged the Molesworth Street property for £1000. In 1933 the mortgagee exercised his power of sale. The company went into liquidation in November, 1933, and would not bs<able to carry out ,its contract over the Taita-property. The plaintiff had lost all his estate in the Molesworth Street property amounting to £1300.. As against the other defendants the. plaintiff alleged that they had prepared the contract and the subsequent memorandum of transfer, and in the latter respect had assumed the obligations of solicitors acting for him. They had acted negligently, it was pleaded, in not having, the transfer properly executed. ■ Holdsworth, in his statement of defence, feaid that he was not engaged to act for the plaintiff until after the contract had been entered into, and he then explained the possibility of the

company not being able to give title. He denied the allegations of negligence. He admitted having advised the plaintiff to sign the transfer, but said that at the same time he pointed out the serious position that would arise if the company was unable to give title..

The other defendants pleaded that1 they had drafted the contract and, prepared the transfer as solicitors to, and upon instructions from, the company. It was not intended that the transfer should be registered until the company should have taken title, and it was handed to Holdsworth on that express understanding. Under the contract the plaintiff was not entitled. to receive a memorandum of transfer, or.if he was so entitled, he had no right to a transfer esecuted by any other person than the company. It was not the' .usual practice to obtain the concurrence o£ the owner of the freehold or his mortgagee in cases where the sale of land was made by a person holding it under agreement for sale and purchase. The defendants denied having acted negligently or that they at any material time had been under any duty to the plaintiff. After evidence had b^een taken, the | further hearing of the case was adI journed.