MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume LXII, Issue 15243, 3 December 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

4 TTvNANvA OASK.

t^i-o j^uaA'^ s, W 0»«» <i :>'-<' »>r i h-iMiii., VI. r-, ~,(,(>>« :».itt. 1> r *;,i, \ .'li'i'lv'l '1 .V->i'»!iMl i>>ulil Hot 1)0 lll>'tftiiVii ~.. « ulviv > \'\ Ills ju>i!>,mo!ii, iho V(--2 . o■-\ d ih;\l i^'io lY.i'ts wonl t-Viai ( v;,:! -i M.««l hor husband v.ere l^^^ss of :* I'Siivo lon so Im>hi i,,<|\j;; -iv ..:..>v.'O iov \!l yours w.i Avtight x-i ivu.-m\al ami \nluntii.n ;' r ■jyr^vOVsu'sit * "-'' i. i;i ovout ol' m.in-roi!owi- %\; Tho p!-' >*'it'i osicriod on tho busi--IS<vss of i^; , Oi.!---» at Aiotnokn, ami f.n ikrtt nnvpo.^o ;n\ Amerioan ovon \\\to U\C: Innl^'i1.. She Hold the bu.ildiitO; to I.Vo .', ' ■•'<.■> us, with the cvrn \\\

it, without reservation. After the aalo prououdod to remove tho oven nuil was stopped by defendants. Action ~,.••, tiiluru i'.ir the recovery of the oven or its valuo. For tho plaintiff it was "..ntended that the oven was a tenant's •■ uiv, jiiul could ho removed by tho tpnitnt. For the defendants it was held ..a tho vendors authorised their ;i;;oia to sell t.ioii" interest without reservation. Tho interest in tho lease, -•.mi tin! .Magistrate, was tho right # to ■ >viii)y :Ik' iionuses for the unexpired term* of the lease, the right to renewal, . railing renewal, the right to tho value for improvements and the right, j ny, uf tho tenant to remove the fixtures. This was a right that applied IkU1 m landlord and tenant and not '••'t-.wwn vendor and purchaser, and whatever right the lessees had they ..-.- j^.ied tho ß o rights. Theso would

i include the lessees' rights to tho removal of the fixtures, as against the landlord. In this case it was immaterial 'whether the oven was a tenant's hxtiue and removable as against the landlord or was part of the improvo nK j::os tor \\ lnch ho was entitled to , valuation. In either event the plaintiii; had assigned her interest to the defendants, which interest covered all rights of vendors as against the landlord, and they could not as against the jwrchaser remove any part of the fixDures sold unless the right to do so was reserved in the sale. Judgment would bo for the defendants with costs.