A COMPLICATED CASE

Southland Times, Issue 17470, 26 March 1915, Page 2

A COMPLICATED CASE

BANKRUPT CONTRACTOR. Judgment in the somewhat complicated case of the Southland Timber Co. v. William J. Clark was given by Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., In the Court yesterday. The terms of the Judgment were as follows: The 'plaintiff company sue for timber sold and delivered. The facts are that the timber in question was ordered by one T. Corlet, of Pleasant Point, contractor, and delivered to him. Obviously, therefore, ‘unless it can be shown that Corlet was the agent for the defendant in the transaction a sale and delivery to Corlet proves nothing against the defendant. It appears that Corlet, who is now bankrupt, had a contract with the defendant to build some additions to his house. The contract was the usual one to provide material and labour for a certain sum. The timber he ordered and received from the plaintiff company was for the purpose of, and was used in, his contract w,lth the defendant. This clearly does not carry the case any further against the defendant. The plaintiff company sent fTie account for tho timber to Corlet in July, 1914, and he wrote upon it a note that the account was correct and was payable to the company, and sent it on to the defendant. The defendant wrote upon it “This amount does not belong to me. Corlet had the contract to supply all material. I hold part of the money yet. but I can't pay you without an order for the money,” and returned it to the plaintiff company. These facts do not evidence a novation of the debt, nor do they amount to an equitable assignment of the fund in the defendant’s hands for tho purpose of paying the plaintiff company’s debt. Even if they could be construed in either of these ways, the fact that Corlet became bankrupt in the previous month of May disposes of any such view. In July there was in fact nothing to assign. I have examined the case from every point of view; but in fact the defendant was only called upon to meet a case of goods sold and delivered. • I think it is clear that the plaintiff company cannot recover from the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant.