AN IMPERFECT AGREEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9264, 18 January 1889, Page 5

AN IMPERFECT AGREEMENT.

[by telegraph.—press association.] Ciiiustchurcii, Thursday. Ax interesting decision was given in theSupreme Court, to-day, by His Honor Justice Ward, in a case brought by the Mercantile Finance Company against H. Marks. The defendant had seized furniture belonging to H. S. Austin, over which the company bad a bill of sale. To prevent him from soiling, the company deposited £100. Marks alleged that tho premises on which the goods had been seized had been purchased by Austin from him, under an agreement, ono clause of which provided that if the purchaser should fail to pay interest on the purchase money, the vendor should have power to distrain on the premises, with all powers of sale and remedies which the law gives to landlords as against tenants. £103 was due under that agreement. Mr. Russell, for the plaintiff, cited Pullbrook v. Ashby, 56, Law Journal, Queen's Bench, 376(5, to prove that tho clause of the agreement under which Marks seized was a bill of sale under section 3, Chattels Securities Act, 1880, and should have a schedule attached. As it had no schedule, ib was void. The Judge uphold the contention, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.