SUPREME COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22277, 2 March 1936, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR FARM RENT A claim for rent allegedly due of £lB 19s 6d was stated by counsel to have been brought into the Supreme Court because of an important principle involved, the. action being brought to establish in law the rights ot a mortgagee, when default was made under a mortgage and when the property was leased, requiring the tenant to pay to the mortgagee any rent thereafter becoming due to the mortgagor. The action was one in which Charles ■I. I’ayne and Edgar T. Shancl, as trustees of the estate of the late J. T. Douglas, claimed £lB 19s 6d as rent from William I’ryde. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the plaintiffs, and defendant conducted his defence on his own account. Mr Sinclair, in opening the case, said that in 1922 the late William Kirkland mortgaged his farm to the trustees of the late John F. Douglas to secure the sum of £4OO, and in 1935 a further advance of £l5O was made. William Kirkland died’ in 1928, and in 1929 probate was granted to his widow, who, under the terms of the ’will, was life tenant as well as executrix? in 1934 Mrs Kirkland leased the mortgaged property to the defendant for a term of seven years, the rental being £75, which was payable monthly. The lease was apparently drawn up and executed by the parties, and submitted to the mortgagees for consent, which was given. The lease contained no reference to arrangements alleged in the statement of defence. The interest was paid up under the mortgage to December, 1934, but none had since been paid. In June notice was given of the mortgagee’s intention to exercise power of sale, and no application for relief was made. In August, 1935, notice was served on the defendant requiring him to pay the mortgagee all rent thereafter due to the mortgagor. That was acknowledged by the defendant, but he had refused to pay any rent at all. It was submitted the defendant could not have any set off against the mortgagor, and, furthermore, the claim was clearly not in respect of any interest in the land. , William Ferguson Forrester, solicitor, and William S. Armitage, solicitor, gave evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim. Defendant said in evidence that he bought the farm as a going concern for £3OO cash, with a guarantee that the seller would take 35 gallons of milk a day at BJd a gallon. He dealt with Mrs Kirkland and her son. She at first wanted 25s a week rent, but afterwards agreed on 22s fid. He would not have leased the place had the - rent not been fixed at that figure. The land was worth only what could be taken out of it. To Mr Sinclair: He made the arrangement with respect to the milk after he had signed the lease. To His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy defendant said the milk was purchased from him for three months. Then the son came along, took the cans, and said they were getting the milk elsewhere. Defendant asked what the mother had to say about it, and the son did not answer. . After Mr Sinclair had addressed legal argument His Honour reserved his decision.