COVENANT TO BRAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20642, 14 August 1930, Page 15

COVENANT TO BRAND.

STOCK UNDER BILL OF SALE. OPERATION OF INSTRUMENT. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] TE AWAMUTU, Wednesday. Judgment was delivered in the Magistrate's Court at Te Awamutu in a ease in which the Otorohanga Finance Company claimed from J. A. Maxwell, of To Awamutu, a carrier, the return of three horses purchased from F. Blakeborough, of Mapiu, or £6O, as the value of the animals. Blakeborough had pledged his stock by way of security for a loan, but later he purchased three horses. Some time later he sold them to Maxwell, assuring him at the time that they were not covered by the bill of sale. In evidence before the Court Maxwell satisfied the magistrate that he was a bona-fide purchaser. Blakeborough wrote to the company to come and take the stock away. This was done. Three points were raised by the defence, two of which, referring to registration, were disallowed, but on the third claim, "that there is not any covenant in the instrument to brand horses with a specific brand," the defendant succeeded. This defence, the magistrate pointed out,.involved the interpretation of (he branding covenant in the instrument. Defendant contended that the specified brand was only intended for "cattle" in the ordinary meaning of that word, that is. bovine beasts, and that there was no specified brand for the horse then on the property or for any that might be added thereto. The document displayed a want of care in drafting. Jn the operative part it purported to assign "all the stock and chattels" in the schedule, although no chattels were set out. "I see no reason for placing any other meaning on I lie word 'cattle' than its primary meaning of domesticated bovine animals," said the magistrate. "The use of the word 'stock' in the early part of the covenant has obviously been used in a very loose fashion, for it was never intended to earmark anything, nor is any form of earmark specified. .1 his explanation of the wording of the covenant is quite consistent with the intention of the parties which may be drawn from the circumstances, for it is quite evident that the grantee looked to the herd of cattle for his security, and never contemplated any more horses being brought on to the farm. "The mere covenant to bnind, without specification of tlio form of brand, is not sufficient to render after-acijuired stock subject to an instrument by the operation of section 29 of the Act. "Judgment will be for the defendant for his costs, solicitor 13 3s, and four witnesses at 15s each.'