APPEAL COURT JUDGMENTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10239, 22 December 1894, Page 2

APPEAL COURT JUDGMENTS.

(Fur United Press Association.)

WfirxiNTiTOX, December 19,

The Court of Appeal as,t to-day, and delivetsd judgment in several case 3 held over from Is.st sittings.

In the case Carriea v. Gillstt the appeal was allowed. Tha court held that plaintiffs were entitled to have the assignment back to them of the mortgage which had been made over to the defendant, without payment, through the agency of Harper and Co., the members of. which firm had acted as attorneys for both parties. '

In the case of Eoclea v. Hall, which was removed from the Supreme Court, Christchurch, and was a easo similar to that last named, the court wers unanimously of opinion that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed, ou the grouud thai Harper and Co. had no authority to transfer the property of one client to another without payment, and that defendants could not be treated aa purchasers for value without notice. Costs were allovTed to plaintiff on the highest scale.

In the Union Bank of Australia v. ths South Canterbury Building and Investment Company, the caurt allowed the appeal. They htld that the company had such borrowing powers at an ordinary building society ; that they could give themselves, by their articles, power to borrow an overdraft; and that the shareholders, being in a position to give the company that power by article, could also ratify past acts of borrowing, although no itrMelo had been passed. On tho facts, the court held that the Hhareholders had ratified borrowing, nud that the bank could recover. Coats were allowed the bank on the highest scale.