The Appeal Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XIX, Issue 6128, 19 December 1894, Page 3

The Appeal Court.

(b\- telegraph.) Wellington, December 19. The Court of Appeal sat to-day and delivered judgments in cases held over from last sittings. In the case of Carden v. Gillett the .appeal was allowed. The Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to have the assignment back to them of a mortgage which had been made over to defendant without payment, through the agency of Harper and Company, members of which firm had acted as attorney for both parties. In the case of Eccles v. Hall, which was removed from the Supreme Court, Christchurch, and was a case similar to that last named, the Court was unanimously of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed, on the ground that Harper and Company had no authority to transfer the property of one client to another without payment, and that defendants could not be treated as purchasers for value without notice. Costs were allowed to plaintiff on the highest scale. In the case of the Union Bank of Australia v. the South Canterbury Building and Investment Company the Court allowed the appeal. The Court held that the Company had such borrowing powers as an ordinary building society, that it could give itself by its articles, power to borrow on overdraft, and that the shareholders, being in position to give the Coy. that power by article, could also ratify past acts of borrowing, although no article had been passed. On the facts the Court held that the shareholders had ratified the borrowing and that the Bank could recover. Costs were allowed the Bank on the highest scale.