BLANKET MORTGAGE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 14 June 1934, Page 11

BLANKET MORTGAGE.

Lengthy Legal Argument Heard. Per Frees Association. WELLINGTON, June 13. A long argument ensued when Mr j C. C. Watson, on behalf of defendants in a pending Supreme Court action, moved that the action be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and for the reason that the statement of claim attached to the writ disclosed no cause of action. His contention was opposed by Mr P. E. Baldwin, of Palmerston North, and Mr H. J. V. James on behalf of plaintiff. The Chief Justice was on the bench. The case concerned was that in which Thomas V. Marshall, of Stanway, a farmer, issued a writ

against A. B. Shannon and George M’Beth, as executors of the late Trevor Shannon, claiming recission of a contract and return of moneys paid. His Honor reserved his decision. The pleadings deal with an agreement for the sale and purchase of a j farm in the Manawatu, plaintiff Marshall, as purchaser, having paid £IOOO cash and agreed to settle in 1935, de- ■ fendants then undertaking to give j Marshall a title. Marshall is in possession of the land but seeks recission of the contract on the grounds that defendants failed to disclose the existence of a blanket mortgage over the land concerned in the case and other lands. That mortgage, it is claimed, was not disclosed and its existence affects the marketability of the land. Defendants say that the title need not be given till 1935, which is the testing date as to whether the title may be given.