LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 945, 12 October 1910, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPRAL,

; =; ."AN AMAZING DOCUMENT." ,;■ HOST'S '-WILL. ';'■ .'. "An• amazing'.document 1 which; appears fo. have-.' been,- framed for: the enrichment of law-yers and. the puzzlement of Judges." Such.was Mr;-Justice Williams's descrip- ' tioh, of : the will of the late Robert- Holt, of' Napier, which was the subject of judgments /.'delivered by :-/' himself and his brother;!judges'.in';the Court, of Appeal, The case originally ■ came ' before 'Mr. Justice .Cooper in' the; Supreme Court on •ahOriginating summons,/andwas removed 'into the Court of Appeal. -The summons ■asked for an interpretation of the will ,of- the lateßobcrt Holt, of Napier, saw;milleT; :: The - plaintiff -was: James .-Holt, of Napier, sawmilleiv and 'the. defendants .we're John Holt,; ofjHastings;'sawmiller,BarahVLeach'Dean,, wife. otV Oliver ,Leach : Dean, '-of /•Napier,;' ; elerk-in holy -.orders, cand;vßobert : ;Holt v ; junior;;• of Napier, • ac-':Muntarit,'-as: executors of? the will, to- "■' Bother /with'-' infant -children -■■ of James ; Holtj-John Holt/vSarahXeach Dean,-and /Robert/Holt, junior:-.; -/'-. ''z'-:; ' '-/""/, ;' Th* caso;was-argued before the Uurt 'of f Appeal last; April;.; when vMr.^o. '< P. Skerrett,-.;■ R.C., -z;with -G. Wood (of Napier) appeared for the.infant grandchildren ;of .theHcstator.-yMr.-',M. :slyers/ahd;Mr. ;.Napier)- - for'■!■' the*'--four > -named ; persons ..;,benenting ;-nnder willr:ahd Mr.;H., A.; Cornfora /'(of' Napier), and Mr.- E. F. iHadfield -for--Mrs: Thompson (of Napief),:;who had;ah //interest,.under-the will: i--';/ ,' ■'•' •;•;' ; The testator had left - his property with /'a/direction'to-the- trustees .to carry.-on v-his'i'sawmillihg and: other business for. 40 ; ='power';.fci; apply; any part ■of the- income- to'extending.'.the-business arid,then';to"sell ; .the business.-.; Heathen ■gave '.'the /income to -the -four,: named per---EonSj-'-their;-"childrerii.-;br issue. the ■: end of -40. years '..the .whole pro r . /.pertyiw'as'zto'ue"divided .among;;■ the- four; ;-named'persons,' /th'eircliildren, or remoter. ■^issuei-i'-'/;;■.:;>;/.-i;;*:;;./ -h'/;',-";- -■•:■,/--.,--' ■ ■';- .Chief. Justice (Sir!;Robert;,Stout), : ijv''his '■■■ judgment yesterday, after a detailed discussion.' of,. : the..term's;, of the Vwill,' said that; the-' position-seemed to ■u himito;-;be •'■ ■ (1)v That.'.' the.-; provision . f ■carrying'; oh't'lie'•business. v -.for : .4Q;year's !.was', .'voidj"-'-■:■ (2) 'ihai -the;;pr6visioa _for■'carrying'onitho:,trust.:for;. the.;'«ame'-' time ■was"void; (3) „tM';'itho; / \'boqnests.'aiiplicr' ;,Bble;;f6r.;:what was.termed',the:-final;diyi-; ;; eiorii.-'.w'as.i' .also/vvoid V'for'i'fensb'nsJ./of ,'-T'e- :.; mbteioss.>:-.The; gift, of;'some ; income'J to - the.Children-ipr,-.life, could'nbt' ; ;stand.Tt; was base'd on a' : void trnst';V : All/that'could ;- Btand.in. the.,w.iH : 'was,;in,his"opinion; the, ./legacies.. '.Beyond Itjiese,;"thereA'w'a's .ah 'intestacy.:. ■':';;;;.: :■:> 'i\ -'■■■ ;;-;.'■ ;■'. ; •;'.;Jjostices^Williams;V and ; Chapman';;?exjpressed'their"agreement'in separate.judg--;jmehts; Edwards ;■ ffpm s .'them,'and. the/.'decision of 'the .Court was , : therefore a;' majoritr decision.:'' Av.The "'following;, orQer/.wasfmade i—"The \C6urti;,declares that., the itrusts.;-.of '.the; ;';,iestatbr'sv'iyill,';as to'.hisresidudry,.estate, '!inclua\ipg'his,business;'are void,"and that -!Es.;to'such 7 residuary.estate.'there is ah' :.';,iiites'tßeyi , :ah'd';it''is'.'or4eie:d,:ithatvthotca»; 'fbe'remitted.:fo; : :the : Supre'me;Court-.to .de--itermihe''any■;question ; that;'may. : be raised; ; j as'Xto, the' annuity;; to: be : , given '■ to .'■Mona' ;JDeah,-as'to the', annuity, to-be.given;to. .:;;theltestatbr's v . widow, Vaidcthe':--provisions ■■'.'; as';\tb. ,her 'maintenance." arid; the': security jto'support'these - gifts;-and" as to all other legacies' and ■ benefits: specifically given-- by 1 and ■ that the parties have liberty : 'stelapplyitbJthe-Supwm'e/'C.burt'genprally';'; /.arid; that, the costs .as" between solicitor and' ''client-of all parties>ia the Supreme Court 'land in this Court be' allowed'and paid out the;; : ~i : < : y'-ii !; ~ f^-v ■; : :^;PU RCHASE- t OF- BIRCHHILL' RUN- : &-,;^|(^:appea£.;sw^ :';.;'^^.The;,Court of,^Appeal r ;'/.with;-Justices. fWilliams, ;EdwaJds, • Cooper,', and,; ; -ini'ah r da\ ■.dayj.ih-the/case.of/Morlan'd.yV Hales and : /others, -, which... concerned .certain" disputed. i transactidhs;'for,;ithe/sale^of' the •■Birchhill-vEstate,-Maribprbugh;.'^iv^vv',.;^'!'Tii' - -- ;; - ; -' ;;; -' :pcrsbn'sV;. both; acting*in\'good'faith' -''.(accordihg-tb'i/the!^/Chief ;;J.ustio6's.';;jndg-.-■~'men(i''fromvwWcHVippett;was^madß) J ;Ji"ad; ,'.rpuichased"::,the; property through two dif-i ■"'feTeht.lahd'/dgerits.v./The equities, he con; 'sidered,'r;were. equal,/'and..the; person/who /obtained -the/;first valid..cohtract.'/was/en/ti tied'.to. have/.-tho .property/.conveyed, to. .■;him'.'.,'That : /person,:.;'.in his .Honour's /'opihion,..'.was;:George /Edward -.Some'rville,;. ;of; Spu'thbridge, shee'pfarmer. , ; The other; /"purchaser" ''.was/Thomas ';.Moriahd,.'- : of ; ,-Rakaia,///farmer.« The//; vendors' /{having--itreated Somcrville as the; purchaser, Mor;land" had .claimed,';in the Supreme Court, /'specific performance, : of-..'agreement, ' and -.when: /the/case'''-was: decided/against him 'imvappealed. ,y, ; ;- .-,,:;*{/"/• y//{///;/ ■-' /:'.■■ -The vendors of-the 'estates'/which is a /;shee'pruii/;of vlß,Boo'-hcres"inz- the" Wa'i-rau' /■yalley,/;were'ifive Wellington..gentlemen/ namely,/Frederick.Hales,;.Benjamin Cole--/man;;James"Brbwhlie, 'John Oliver,.'■ and 'Thomas/Wilson, -defendants: inZ-'the'/ori-igihal ■ action,-.and f esporidents-' ih/'.th'e 'Ap-. i ;peal/Court."'/{////'':fi r i; /;-,;-,■{■;/-'./■///-- ■;■ '..^ "Gebr'ge/. Harper /'(of./ Christchurch),and Mr. T.' Ybung_argiied/ the appeal for Morland, Mr.-C. T./'Skerrett, K.C., with 'him, Mr. H.^F..'o'Leary/(instructed -by -iMr;; Ji ; -J-.: M GrathJ'/appeared; for the're- ; jspondent's/.(except".Somerville), /and -Mr; /T./-W.' ; Striiigerri/K::C./:(of/Christchnrch);-~.with'/him-Mr.'/P;'Levi;/for'/Somerville.' 'Mr. Justice :Williams, in-his judgment, - -~ said /that - the- appellant for Valuable con-.' /Bideratiori obtained.ah option: from-a syn- ; ■. dicate to'.-.- purchase; at ■' a. •■ price named,/, a ;-freehold : station-land :.the«stock;,/thereon,' the ,option/to/remain open for ten'days.' : Before' /expiration' of the' ten days, ; -:the syndicate/were led'to believe-that ■ the ■ appellant had/declined /to /'.'exercise the : /.option,' ; and .they/Zentered into a-.contraot, for/the sale of,the property to/Somerville, / /who was ■ unaware; that' any''previous bp- ; tion',had been,.given..- Before the expiration : 6f ; .theoptio'n'.the' appellant,who was unaware/of/the.sale, to Somcrville, paid ;,the{sum-'-which/uhder';the/option-it' was / •ft/jCondition-jhe./'should/pay, .and so v . ex-' /ercised';'the./option;/.-The contract of the : ; syndicate: with "Soriierville/had /not' been, ; completed/by conveyance- hbr; by payment /•of. 1 the'purchase-money;a deposit only-hav-/.ihg'/.been ;paid...-The; present /'action was' ": by'/the', appellant .'against- the/syndicate for'; specific; performance'/, of - the' contract; which' he 'alleged' arqs'o ■ by.' the exercise ; of the 'option,'; arid Someryille was joined as'/a' third party." - ~:: ;//-■{;./:/{. ■."•-.■ : - : '-- .-'.'■ -After.discussing the:legal r aspects of the. case and: referring;'to/a;riumber{of->pre--vious decisions, his Honour .reached the followingV position:—"First, :• that ./an '■ in./terest/ih land:passed by-.the;option.-' Sec-- , ohd,/that.if ;an interest ■/in'-land didnot; /iass, yet'the option was 'a contract' af-z Jectihg the land which the/Court will enforce- in'priority/to' tho ; subsequent :jcontract'izwith- Someryille../■'■ In' either, case if ; ithe/option!. has, "been duly exercised '/there ■as.-;ho .'superior /claim -.which:' would - dis- : .entitle the .plaintiff: to : specific'.'perform-, 'nance." ""■ : ■•;'■ -.•/•-.'■'; ;-/ '■■;/'/'/:/■ ///-'■./;/" '■'■'■

.;' .The .question; then.; arose :; whether the' option "was abandoned'by the: appellant, tf it was'hot,'whether;the.appellant" [hail; properly exercised it by payment of : the fleposit. ■'■ It wasVadmitted< that' the '•option was; a contract for valuable consideration; By, it the'appellant had ten days-given.him ;to -decide "whether he would purchase or not. During these ten days-ho could hum and'haw' and shilly- : shally as inuch as he pleased, and, if better..bargain'; so.long as he did not. in clear terms give the' respondents notice that ; he would not -purchase,-./ Unless the appellant definitely closed the matter by '.refusing to buy, the respondents .would be under an obliga-. ..titjrt -.to.-keep "the. option; open; -Tho re--Bpbndentsj. or their: agent, would not be justified";^'disregarding the option simply because the appellant during its currency had 'used expressions which made it; exceedingly doubtful 'whether ho would exercise -it. iHis."Honour' did not think that what .took 'place, amounted to an abandonment of the,. option. He was of opinion':that the appeal should bo allowed, and that the appellant was entitled to specific performance.' ;;,The other judges concurred/in- separate, -judgments, and. the Court ordered accordingly., ;;.';; ;.. ; ;' MABTON BAKER'S, TROUBLES. ' '.": A promissory" NOTE. , The Court of Appeal—consisting of the ■Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Justices Williams, Cooper, and - Chapman— , leard the oa'se.of Hatrick v. Nicol, an ' Mipeal from a decision of Mr. Justice ;,piwards....,' "'"-.. . '

In the Supreme Court at Wanganui, Alexander Ha trick, merchant, trading under the'stylo of A. Hatrick and Co., claimed'to recover from' Einina Sophia .Nicol, as the endorser of a promissory note, for the accommodation of hor husband, John Murray Nicol, of, Marton, baker, the sum of .£B9l lis. 9d. - , The defence upon which at the conclusion of the trial reliance was placed was that'the plaintiff gave time to tho maker of the note, arid thereby discharged the defendant. '■ It was shown in evidence that the promissory note in question fell due, and was.dishonoured on February 4, 1910. Notico of dishonour was given to defendant. 'Tho maker of the note, John Murrav Nicol, then owed the plaintiff considerably, moro than the amount of the, note. ; Some time after this date, plaintiff suggested-. to.. Nicol that he should assign his estate to his manager, -William Atkins .Trist,. in trust for his creditors. Nicol did so, and a deed was prepared by which Nicol assigned to Trist all his, property with the usual trusts for .'realisation, and f6r distribution of the prooeeds amongst creditors. There W(is no-reservation of the rights of the creditors' against sureties or persons other than Nicol himself. Under this .deed Nicol's'business was carried oh by Trist. Tho deed, was sent to plaintiff, and he appeared to have retained possession of it without informing Nicol.that he had neither signed it nor obtained the signa: tures of other creditors to -, it. ~ In his judgment Mr. Justice Edwards 'stated that the question ho had to. determine was'; whether or' not,' the-': plaintiff, who, had procured'' the execution of the deed, could, in the circumstances stated, have at all times enforced.his remedy against Nicol by action for recovery of tho; amount due to him. If,,he could, then he must-have: judgment-for the amount olaimed; If he; could not, then there must' bo judgment l for :the .defendant. His'/Honour' gave judgment 'for defendant, ;with costs.-,- -\':9 : . ■ The'appeal was "against tho whole judgment,: on; the ground that' it/was erron-' eousinfact and.law. ~ ■; '.: Mr. ;C."P. ; Skerrett, : K.C.,'with.him.-Mr. H..F..Johnston;'appeared/for the appellant, while the respondent was represented by Mr. C. P. Collins and Mr.: 6. H> -Pell.- - Decision .was reserved, i- ,' .-:/'. :■ -':.-•': : '.The Court adjourned until,lo.3o a.m.- .to-;-1 .;;;'/'/;:'.--':■;;';■'•.' '■;■?.-•■ :