COURT OF APPEAL.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1923, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

80i.r.-' v. i.vo.-rs. WELLINGTON. April 11. The Court of Appeal is engaged in the b.aring of argument in Rolu- and Co. and another v. Inglis Pro-. The facts of the case were that Bolus and Co were the London Inlying agents of Inglis and Co. In !921) Bolus and Co., in execution of respondent's orders shipped good- and drew on the respondent lor £1752 2s -Id. file value of .such goods, plus (barges. The bill was duly accepted and b.’came dim on February 2nd.. 1921. but the time tor payment was extended Id May Ith. Billowing. Part of the goods lc the extent of £705. represented by a lull, had been supplied by the Sopwith Aviation and Engineering Company. 'Phis coinpaii.v went into hquidnt ion. and it liquidators (hiimcd the payment of the £7O > (1 11 si t from lbe i ■ spoudent. Ip these circumstance: the respondent dishonoured the bill. I biappellants. however, sued for the lull amount although limy had not hit it! the Sopwith Company the £(OS. The respondent was ready to pay the amount, provided that he did not hate, to pay the 0705 twice over, and he paid into Court the sum of £999 12s 4d. In the Supreme Court Mr •lustice Masking had hold that Dm respondent was not liable to pay the appellant's C 705. From this judgment Bolus and Co. appealed before the Appeal Court. Mr A. Gray. K.C., and with Inin Mr von 11 jin -= r appeared for I be appellants, and Mr M. Mvri . K.C.. and with him Mr O’T.onr.v. for the respondent. Mr Gray said that linin' and Co ..ad made them.- elves p: r-miallv liable to the Sopwith Company tor payment ol !'>■■■ £705. In ativ cu e Sopwith and Co bad elected to' treat Bolus and < o •is principals, tied Bolus and ( o w.uc therefore entitled to --ue for the lull amount of the bill. Ml- livers, for the respond.-lit, cniit.lull'd that, v.ilh regard to the sum of £7:45 which was the real subject id t],■, dispute, the appellants were merely Lbe agents of Dm respondents, and bad ordered the goods tnuu the _ *upwith Company in an ordain-e wit u a special jil t’sineiit iicl wr'.Mi uic S »owith Company ami Dm respondents. Respondents were directly liable to the Sop'.! ith Company for lj' payment <4 £7(55, and as the appellants had not paid Sopwith and Co., they had no claim against Inglis and Co. Ltd. Tbe Court reserved its dci i-mn.