AN INVOLVED MORTGAGE TRANSACTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2811, 15 November 1924, Page 3

AN INVOLVED MORTGAGE TRANSACTION.

An involved mortgage case was placed before Mr Justice MacGregor at the Supreme Court at Palmer.-,! on N. on Thursday, when David Xcaley, of Waitoa, farmer, proceeded against Alexander Speirs, of Foxton, builder, Albert John G'bbs, of Palmerston N., flaxmiller, and Anton J. Hinlz, as third party, claiming £2,087 19/1 damages for alleged breach of covenant in mortgage and legal costs. Mr Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Jacobs for the defendant Gibbs, and Mr Ongley for the defendant Hintz as the third party.

The statement of claim set out that plaintiff formerly owned a freehold estate in Taranaki, containing 1917 acres. By a mortgage dated October 14, 1912 plaintiff mortgaged the land to the Public Trustee for £3,000 with interest at. 6 per cent reducible to five per cent on punctual payment. By a second mortgage, subject to the first, plaintiff mortgaged the land to G. G. Death, then of Fordell, farmer, for £2,200, agreeing to repay this mortgage on August 1,191 G. The statement of claim proceeded at length to detail the conditions of payment of interest to Death and oher stipulations under, the mortgage. On December 19, 1912, plaintiff; transferred to W. F. G. Scott, of Waitoa, farmer, that piece of land subject of'ffhe mortgages mentioned. The transfer, the statement alleged, implied a covenant on the part of Scott to make, payments due under the second mortgage." On November 11, 1913, Scott transferred to the defendant Speirs and Gibbs, who then became liable for dues under the second mortgage. It was alleged however, that default was made in the

payment of such dues in such respect as payment of county council rates, and interest, and that plaintiff had had to meet, the various dues himself, and had paid £I,BOO to Death under the second mortgage, giving promissory notes for the balance. Scott- went bankrupt in February, 1919, and plaintiff proved against bit, estate for £2,024. In March, 1924. the official assignee agreed with plaintiff that if the latter withdrew his proof of debt he would set over to plaintiff the full benefit of defendants’ covenants with Scott, together with the right to recover and receive from defendants all damages and costs such as Scott might have recovered from them but for his bankruptcy. Plaintiff made claims on defendants accordingly, but they had not been met, and he now sought the sum named thiough the Court.

It was intimated by Mr Jacobs that there was really no legal defence to the claim, and if the facts were proved no objection would he

taken to judgment being given. The evidence of the plaintiff was as proof of the statements in the claim and His Honour gave judgment as sought.