QUESTION OF TITLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18025, 25 February 1922, Page 7

QUESTION OF TITLE.

HAMILTON EAST PROPERTY. SUPREME COURT DECISION. Judgment has heen delivered by Mr. Justice Stringer on an originating summons heard at.Hamilton in DeoemMr last to determino a question of title a connection with ,a property in Hamilton East. The facts, as reviewed by the Judge, wore that one.Sarah Wood was, at the date 1 of her death in 1883, the, owner in fee of a parcel of land containing two acres at Hamilton East. She died intestate, and lettere of administration were granted to her husband, John Wood, w"ho later Bold the sections to one Samuel Pascoe for the sum of £200. The property passed through several hands, and waa ultimately conveyed to the present plaintiffs, Albert Edward Kelly and William Henry Kelly (Mr. MacDiarmid), wfco recently sold to the defendants, John William Whittington and Minnie Whittington (Mr. Staco), lot i of these sections. The defendants n# requisitioned for evidence the authority of John Wood to convey the sections to Pascoe. The question raised by the summons was whether the defendants had a right to insist upon their requisition. The.main contention put forward by the defendants was that, as by virtue of the Administration Act, the real estate of a deceiJiecig person could not be sold by the administrator without the consent of the Court, except for the paying of debts or duties,' then, unless the conveyance showed upon its face that the land was sold for that purpose, evidence must be furnished that, in fact, it was so sold, the consent of the Court not having been obtained. His Honor said there was express authpsity to show that recitals, identical in effect with those contained in the conveyance executor by John Wood, sufficiently expressed that the executor was acting in professed exercise of the powers | given him by law. After quoting the various Acts in question, His Honor said that in the present case it Was not suggested that Pascoe and the subsequent owners of the property were not purchasers bona fide and for valuable consideration, and .the provisions of_ the SMtion mentioned therefore, in his opinion, clearly applied. Indeed, he found it difficult to imagine to what cases they would apply, if not to such cases as the one now under consideration. He held, therefore, that the requisition made by the defendants could not be insisted on, ana the question submitted by the summons was answered accordingly.