R.M. Court

Southland Times, Issue 11670, 26 February 1891, Page 2

R.M. Court

Wednesday, 25th February. (Before C. R. Rawson, Esq., R.M.) AN INTERESTING POINT. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. C. P. Raines. — Claim L 23 15a, as balance of rent due on the hire of a sewing machine. — Mr Macalister for the plaintiff and Mr Henderson for the defendant. — The defendant had obtained a sewing machine from the plaintiffs upon an agreement that he was to pay 2s 6d per week for the hire of the machine uutil the payments amounted to Lll, when it was to become his property. The defendant made the weekly payments until they amounted in all to L 6 15a and then ceased to do so, and the plaintiffs now sued to recover rent for the hire of the machine from the 12th January, 1886, at 2s 6d per week. The facts were admitted, the point in dispute being as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to charge the 2s 6d per week for all the time the machine was in the defendant's possession, or had only the right to recover L 4 5s as the balance due on the actual and specified value of the machine. — Mr Macalister read the terms of the agreement, and submitted that as the defendant had never exercised the right of purchase given therein he had never become the owner of the machine, and was therefore liable for rent for hire, — Mr Henderson said he had, on behalf of his client, offered to pay the balance due on the machine, with all costs, in monthly instalments of 10s. He submitted that the action had been taken in the wrong form and should have been one for wrongful conversion. — Mr Macalister said the machine had not been sold but had been hired out under a right of purchase which the defendant had not exercised. A person might hire a horse and trap at so much a week and use it for years, and then there would be so much rent due. The fact that that amount might be ten tim<sS the actual value of the chattels had nothing to do with the matter ; the rent would still be lawfully and rightly owing. In the agreement it was provided thut until the sum of Lll was paid the machine was not to become the property of the defendant. That being clearly a condition precendent to the actual purchase, and that condition not having been fulfilled, the plaintiffs remained the owners and were entitled to claim rent for hire. From the equity point of view, too, he pointed out that the plaintiffs had been deprived of the use of the money due to them for a number of ysars. The defendant was in the same position as a man who had taken a lease of a property with a purchasing clause, and had not exercised his right under that clause. The defendant had kept the machine for five years and it might be worth nothing at all, while the plaintiffs had been deprived of the use of their money all that time. As to the form the action should have taken, counsel submitted that the plaintiffs did not say that the defendant had been guilty of conversion Jbut simply that he had hired the machine and was liable for the rent.— Mr Henderson said tho aimment was in effect that when the defendant made 88 payments of 2s 6d each the machine was to become his property, and now the plain tiTs claimed 260 payments of 2a 6d. If judgment were given for the full amount the defendant would immediately be entitled to a refund, as the agreement provided that the machine should become the defendant's on the payment of Lll. The plaintiffs had neglected to enforce their right to the rent and the machine for all theso years, and in fairness and equity they ought not to be allowed now to claim three or four times the value of the article. — Hia Worship said he thought the action had been properly brought, and whether it was fair or not that the defendant should be made to pay the amount claimed, people would have to be bound by their agreements. The principle in thia case was the same aa that in regard to the payment of interest to which the Mercantile Law Amendment Act said there was no limit. The agreement was perfectly clear. If the defendant had gone on paying up to 1888 the machine would have belonged to him, but he did not do so and was therefore now liable for the rent. It might be that he would have to pay more than tho value of the machine, but that could no* be helped. — Mr Henderson asked if he would have still been liable for rent up to the present time had he paid up to ISB.S but said nothing about purchase. — His Worship said that if the defendant had paid up to Lll the machine would, by the terms of the agreement, have become his property. — Mr Henderson said the plaintiffs were apparently to get L 32 lOs for a. machine vebieh tliey themselves had valued at Lll — Mr Macalister again pointed out) that the plaintiffs had been kept out of their money for all these years. — Mr Henderson said the case would do good in the district, as doubtless many housewives had been "got at. " — His Worship said that in this case the defendant had been in the wrong as he had not paid the amount he had agreed to. — Mr Henderson assented, but said that when the true legal position became known there would not be so many machines sold in tli3 district. He was glad that the facts would be made public. —Mr Macalister claimed that in equity alone the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment upon the grounds he had previously stated. — Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs, L 3 15s.