COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1190, 21 December 1894, Page 15

COURT OF APPEAL.

The* adjourned sittin g of the Court of Appeal for the delivery of certain deferred judgments took place on Wednesday, their Honors the Chief Justice arid Mr Justice Richmond being on the Bench.

UNION BANK OF AUSTRALIA V. SOUTH CANTERBURY BUILDING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY.

In this case the appeal was against a judgment of -Mr Justice Denniston disallowing the claim of the -Bank for moneys advanced. The Company pleaded that it was not liable, as it had exceeded its powers of borrowing.

Mr Justice Richmond delivered the judgment of the Court. He said the first question to be answered ( on this appeal was whether or not the directors of the defendant Company had power to borrow of the Company's banker on overdraft on the usual terms of such advances, i.e., subject to the liability to be called upon to repay on demand, and as incident to that liability subject from day to day to variations in the rate of interest chargeable. As to this the Court saw no reason to think that the general power of borrowing inherent in mercantile, companies or in financial companies dealing with the general public was vested in the defendant Company. The next question was whether the overdraft was approved and ratified by the shareholders so as to bind the Company. The shareholders were held to have the power of ratifying, and the Court held that ratification must be presumed. The Bank was therefore adj udged to be entitled to the full benefit of the charge created by the mortgages of 24th August, 1892. The appeal was therefore upheld, aud costs in this Court were allowed on the highest scale ; amount of judgment to be fixed by Court below, and costs there to be awarded accordingly, liberty to both parties being given to apply to Court below. ECCLES V. HALL AND OTHERS. This was a case removed from the Supreme Court at Christchurch. The plaintiff, Captain Eccles (executor of the late Major Eccles) brought it to compel Sir John Hall and other trustees of the late Sir Cracroft Wilson’s estate to deliver up a mortgage for <£6oo alleged to have been wrongfully transferred to them by the Harper Bros. The Chief Justice said that judgment must be for the plaintiff for the <£6oo and interest at the rate of 6 per cent, from the date of the transfer, 26th September, 1892. Costs on the highest scale. CARDEN V. GILLETT. This was an appeal from Mr Justice Denniston's judgment disallowing a claim of the appellant's for relief on account of funds invested by Harper and Co. The judgment of the Court below was reversed and judgment given for plaintiff for <£lloo, amount of the mortgage, with costs on the highest scale; costs of the Court below to be as on a judgment for <£lloo. IN RE CHAMBERS. This was a case where the Court of Appeal had held that the beneficiaries under the will of the late Mr Chambers, of Napier, were bound to pay succession duty upon a deed which had been executed in their favour during his lifetime. Mr Chapman* on behalf of the beneficiaries, asked for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Mr Gully objected on the part of the Commissioner of Stamps that each amount owing by the beneficiaries was under the sum of <£6oo, and that therefore there was no power to grant the appeal. The Court sustained this objection and refused the appeal, »

NIREAHA TAMAKI V. J. H. BAKER (COMMISSIONER OF CROWN LANDS). In this case leave was given on the usual terms to appeal either to the Supreme Court or the Privy Council. The Court then adjourned.