SALE OF A LEASEHOLD FARM

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 306, 20 September 1920, Page 6

SALE OF A LEASEHOLD FARM

interesting point of law decided. An interesting joint transactions i"J*™! >P Justioe ohmnnan cided by HisJJ o rv „j indgment touchlast week, in BC s e £ er \ Edward Mcccli ■r "Sum .»>»•<. cided on J nn PW ''.A fl' o jendant specificwas given ordering tog™ R J ant a, ally to perform an rc l™ e Pongar oa disloase of farm land in tne roi t trict to the nUinM. As a. pjrti n T r n er tta l SSr» P Of his reserved judgment nnrt tsn» it be referred to the Bcgistrar to report reduction in rent ought obe made in consequeuoe of the failure. At. the hearing Mr. Skerrett argue■<>'hat wns one contract as to tho two pieces 01 land: that to separate them was to make a new contract; that the authorities di not apply to a case where .so large a pro portion of the farm was involved in the failure. His Honour observed that lie was unable to see why tho defendant s' lo not perform the contract so,far asi he was able to perform it. It seemed to him that defendant was only .asked to do what the Courts had done in ] n ! lumor ? ,3l< L.?? s ) e ° where the vendor failed to make title to the whole of the property which lie had sold, and the purchaser was willing to take what the vendor, could give with an abatement of the price. The defendant was guilty of a clear breach of contract in attempting to alienate the land and in endeavouring to induce tho Land Board to sanction the proceeding. Tho defendant's breach of contract was therefore unsealed. In all the circumstances His Honour thought that the proper order for him to make by way of carrying out the judgment already pronounced was that as the defendant had failed to' make a good titlo to the leasehold, it be referred to the Ecgistrar at- Palmerston North to renort what was a proper deduction to be made from the agreed rent in respect to the part of tho land to which title was not made, and what was a proper rent for .'the plaintifl to nay for the land he had elected to take. Further costs were allowed in the sum of £15 15s. At the hearing Mr. M. Myers,' with him Mr. M'Sherry, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K. 0., with him Mr. T. H. G. Lloyd, for the defendant.