SALE OF AN ESTATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17263, 12 September 1919, Page 9

SALE OF AN ESTATE.

CLAIM AGAINST VENDOR. DELAY IN IMPROVEMENTS. [by telegraph.—own correspondent.] HAMILTON. Thursday. An action to recover £2330 alleged damages and for specific performance was brought by Owen M. Monckton, sheep farmer, Hamilton (Mr. Hunt), against Ham- T. Gillies, solicitor, Hamilton (Mr. J. R. Reed. K.C., and Mr. Luxford), in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Cooper today. The Hamilton Borough Council (Mr. Swarbrick) was joined as third party.

The statement of claim set forth, inter alia, that on March 23, 1918, the defendant entered into an agreement for tne sale to plaintiff of certain lands known as the Palmerston Estate. The agreement provided that the price was to be £14,000, and the agreement was to be completed prior to August, 1918. The vendor agreed to complete all work on the estate and to generally comply with all the requirements of the Borough Council relating to the formation of roads, footpaths, drams, and bridges, the dedication of loads, the laying of gas and water mains, the metalling of roads, and the planting of trees; and the vendor agreed to pay all sums payable to the Borough Council. It was admitted that the plaintiff did all that he was , required to do under the agreement, and i that all things had happened to entitle the I plaintiff to performance by the defendant lof this part of the agreement. The statement ol claim further alleged that the defendant had failed to complete the work undertaken upon the estate, and that byreason of defendant's default the plaintiff had been unable to proceed with the sale of the estate, had been deprived of the benefit of the laud, had suffered loss by I reason of his inability to sell the land had suffered loss in that he had to pay outgoings and had been compelled to incur legal costs and expenses. The total claim under these headings amounted to £2330. In his statement of defence the defendant said he had done all that could be required of him. that he had transferred the estate to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff knew of the existence of the agreements with the Hamilton Borough Council, that th> Borough Council had worked and was still working on the estate. Anv delay ,n the work had been due to the Borough Council, and the defendant had paid all moneys and done even-thing necessary on- his part to have the agree ment performed. The defence also alleged that the defendant had entered into direct negotiation* with the council and? by so doing waived the personal performance by the defendant of the work, except in so far as the defendant was able to urge the more rapid completion of the work In opening for the plaintiff, counsel said that since the issue of the writ the estate had been transferred to the plaintiff It was admitted that the Borough Council had done a certain amount of work 'but it had not completed it. But counsel'submitted that any agreement between the defendant and the Borough Council did not concern the plaintiff. ♦ v, The , pli V ntiff , said he was informed bv the defendant, that the roads of the estate when finished would be the same as in I laudelands Witness had heard of the agreements between the defendant and the Borough Cbuncil. but did not consider they concerned him. The defendant gave an undertaking to complete the works on the estate. Witness interviewed defendant regarding this work, but could get no satisfaction from him. Witness had also tried to ascertain from the council what it was dome with regard to the work. In July, 1918, the roads on the estate were impassable and the footpaths were practically untouched. Since the issue of the writ the conditions on the estate had improved considerably. In March of this year witness offered the sections of the estate at auction. The roads were then impassable. About seventy or eighty people attended the sale, but onlv one section was sold. Since he took over the estate he had sold about ten sections of which five were sold before the writ was issued He had had practically no benefit from the estate. His claim was for loss of interest, outgoings on the estate and legal expenses, and for loss due to the sections not being sold. Cross-examined, witness said he would be satisfied if told that water and gas had been la:d on in all the streets "for 18 months.

His Honor sa:d that as plaintiff now had his title to the property he as not entitled to ask for specific, performance of the agreement to sell, but of the agreement to complete the work on the estate Mr. Hunt admitted he would have to abandon the claim for specific performance, of the whole agreement, because since the writ had been issued plaintiff had accepted the title. r

Counsel agreed that the onlv point at issue was the question of the .ion-comple-tion of the roads, and at the Judges suggestion counsel conferred as to the points rli? Honor should consider. The case was adjourned.