FINANCING A FARM.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 July 1923, Page 6

FINANCING A FARM.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. CASE OF SOUSANS v. JANS Judgment for plaintiff has been given by Mr. Justice Reed in the case of Sousans v. Jans, which was heard at the last session of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth. The decision was read by the Registrar of the Supreme Court (Mr. J. M. Adam) on Saturday. The particulars of the claim were that on July 2, 1919, plaintiff executed a transfer of a farm to the two sons of defendant, subject to a first mortgage of £l5OO to the New Plymouth Harbor Board, and a second mortgage for £6OO to Mrs. Mary Anderson. They gave a third mortgage for the balance 'of the purchase money of £2147 to the plaintiff. The only cash paid was £5O. Contemporaneously with the execution of the transfer, the mortgage to Mrs. Anderson and the mortgage to plaintiff, the defendant executed a document to plaintiff by which he agreed that, if default should be made, his sons would, “upon demand punctually pay to the mortgagee the said principal, interest and other moneys thereby secured, or duly observe and perform the said covenants, conditions and agreements.” The mortgage principal was not paid on the due date and the term was extended at the request ’of defndant to July 1, 1922. This agreement for the extension of the term was reduced to writing in which defendant negatived any impairment of the original covenant. Later the sons were unable to carry on and abandoned the farm, and it had fallen back into the hands of the plaintiff, who had gone into possession as third mortgagee. Default had been made in payment of the principal and interest due under the mortgagee to Mrs. Anderson. The action, therefore, was to recover the principal moneys due under the mortgage and arrears of interest and rates. The defendant admitted his liability to pay .and had been willing to do so, but demanded that, on payment, the mortgage should be transferred to him. The mortgagee (Mrs. Anderson) with an evident desire to help the plaintiff, declined, to transfer the mortgage. After reviewing the evidence and documents at some length, His Honor considered that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. As no liability attached to the defendant outside his liability under the covenant, he was not concerned as to the disposal of the moneys received from him under the judgment ;• consequently it was unnecessary to impose any terms as to such disposal. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for the sum of £699 15s 9d, together with interest at 8 per cent, per annum on the sum of £45, from December 12, 1922, to date of judgment, with costs according to scale.

At the hearing Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. H. Croker for defendant.