LAW REPORT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 767, 16 March 1910, Page 4

LAW REPORT.

V SUPREME. COURT. • • . v .j • •' V.' '■ • A BjG, MARLBOROUGH RUN. TWO BUYERS. A claim for the'specific performance ..of an agreement for the sale, of a large property, in Marlborough was heard by tho Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout,..in "'■the Supreme Court yesterday.'. -'Cj,' Tho action was brought 1 by . Thomas . Morland, farmer, of i Rakaia, ,'.;.aga)i£>t Frederick Hales, : Benjamin ■ Co'eniaii,' . Jaincs. Brownlie, John Oliver;.- -tjiid ; , Thomas' Wilson, gentlemen, of •' ton. '•. Edward Somerville, sheep ■ia'rmer, of Southbridgo, was . joined as/.a party. . Mr. George Harper, of Christchnrch, And Mr. T. Young appeared for plain- / v tjfT/j Sir. C. P. Skerrett, K.C. (wjth him Mr. • H. F. o'Leary),."instnicted ; -.by Mr J. J. M'Gi'ath, for defendants; and Mr. ' T. \V. Stringer, K.C., of ■ Christchurcli (with. him Mr. P, ; Levi), for. the;, third party, ; i )- .:. Tlio statement of "claim, set out. tint - ; the defendants were owners of a' certain . ' property in the Wairau ? Valley, -Mari- . borough, known as Birph .Bill,, containing- 18,800. acres, and stocked with cattle : and sheep. On' November >8; 1999, defeud- ; ants , agreed to sell.. the,: property -and stock to- plaintiff' for ■ >£37,000, and/ on i/ . November 18, plaintiff;;, in pursuance of the, agreement, paid to defendants ,a , deposit of .£ooo. Before th« expiration' of ; the ■: ten days . from November B,' men- : itioned in the agreement, ' defendants, without the knowledge ; of' plaintiff, entered, into an. agreement with E/ Somerrille, for the sale to' him of /tho pro- . perty and stock, and. repudiated , ths .. agreement with-'plaintiff, refusing.- to carry it out. Plaintiff had-t/ndered,to './ defendants the sum •of ; iE11,5/W, ,'to 'i >be paid within one month, and' applied to defendants , specifically, to . perform the agreement. Defendants, refvsed to aciept the,' sumi - and, declined' to perform ; the agreements.: Plaintiff.. aU.eged that. he was still ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement, .and had .noti- : fie 4 defendants' to that" effect. He the're- ., fore . desired the Court; to' -order ■ defendJugs' specifically to perform : the agree- . .V.ment, and to put,, plaintiff' in full-pos- ;. session'. of the property j and.' stock. •'.- '• ; The. defendants, in tjieir. filed' , stated nent, denied that .there . was ,any' bind- : ing.. contract'. entered .'.would ,>' prevent a., withdrawal/of; the 'offer, and , ' they, alleged that, , prior ;'to. any;;accept: :> : anoe by plaintiff of tr.e'offer,; they with-.-;,drew the'.offer, as lh/>y;were; entitled to ; doi,' . and'. sold the p/roperty to Romer- , rille.' They alleged/ that, bqfore plaintiff; accepted the olffar,; they' to.the ~ knowledge of plaintiff, sold the: property v . to .Somerville, thereby. cancelling and rescinding the offer.; It was further al-p.-.leged"- by defendants that, before they had ; . Bold , the property ;to Somerville; plain- , .tiff, either : by himself or ."his agent, had ! ":-definitely signified . to! defendants that v'he,-'did not. intend to; accept the,'offer. . Defendants denied _that they had . ropuv. diftted any agreement ,witli plaintiff, .and .; ; they .said (that they were desirous of com- ; pletihg '• whichever contract. for ,- sale . sh'ould be f'iund by the Court .to be bind- , ing upon them—either. the alleged ; con'.'l,tract, with/plaintiff, or the Contract with Somervilhv. Defendants ; admitted.; tl;at .. plaintiff had tendered to tliein .the sum of ■■ .£11,500, but denied'that it was. ten- :. ;dered. w-itjiin . tho.'time set out/in 1 ;, the . agreement. ;.;>V The Searing-of .evidence was not, conV";- eluded the Court 'adjourned; ~ for tha -day.;:."'