PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 6, 2 October 1920, Page 6

PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT

APPEAL CASE OYER LAND SALE.

Litigation over the specific performance of a contract occupied the attention oi th.i Court of Appeal yesterday, when an appeal from the decision ot Mr. .Tustico Hcskine in tlie ense of Mnry tor* tonson and Caroline Whiting, was heard. On the bench were Their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mv. Justice Herdman. Messrs. A. H. Johnston and L. A. laylor appeared for tlie\ appellant, and Air. Patrick' O'Dea for the respondent. In the' Court below, His. Honour had dismissed the claim for specific pel formance, allegedly incumbent on the defendant. Caroline Whiting, of Hawera. The case had arisen over the plaintift liaung entered into an agreement with the defendant, to purchase a. parcel ot land situated at Hawera, for .£GOO. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Hosking iound that no contract had been entered into bv thr, defendant, the respondent m the appellant, Mr. Johnstone stated that there could have been no. mistake over the transaction, as the defendant in the" court below had maintained. Ihe appellant claimed specific performance with compensation. The parcel of land concerned bad been, ho contended, erroneously described as bomg one acre in nre.i. but in reality it contained only 3 roods 3 perches. The plaintiff had offered to pay the defendant a sum of i'inouey proportionate to tlio area of the land agreed to bo eold to her, but then the defendant had refused to convey the said parcel of land to the plaintiff, who ■had suffered damage by being witlihekl from talcing possession. He asked that in addition to being ordered to convey the land to the appellant, the respondent should pay 10 damages, and the costs of the action; or alternately, tlio respondent should pay the appellant £100 was not concliulcd when the Court rose, and the hearing will be continued at a later date. ■