SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5685, 19 June 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Wednesday, June 18,

(Befor ins Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.)

MOTION FOB INJUNCTION. In re Plimmer and another v. Hickson. Mr. Ollivier moved, on behalf of the plaintiffs, for an injunction to restrain a threatened sale of property. The motion was an ex parte one, and he proceeded in the matter on the ground of urgency, the writ having just been issued. He explained the case at some length. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, as trustees under a deed of arrangement filed by Mr. Kreeft, against the defendant as mortgagee of a certain leasehold property. It appeared that Mr. Hickson had advanced £750 on mortgage in August, 1877, and that the money was to be repaid in 1882, with interest in' the meantime at 9 per cent., payable quarterly. The quarter’s interest which became due on the 30th of April remained unpaid for thirty days and upwards, and after the deed of arrangement had been assented to at a meeting of creditors held on 10th, June, the. plaintiffs offered to pay 1 , the interest in arrear. Defendant, however, refuted to accept it, and laid he would sell the property under the power of sale in his mortgage, and he advertised the property accordingly. The, plaintiffs made a formal tender of the interest on the 14th June, and offered to pay any costs incurred by defendant in connection with the intended sale. This was refused, and defendant expressed himself determined to proceed to sell. Mr. - Ollivier moved for a provisional injunction to restrain the sale on payment of interest and costs.

: Considerable discussion ensued, and ultimately, His Honor refused the motion, holding that if he were to grant any such injunction it would be introducing a new equity as against a mortgagee who was generally' at liberty to exercise all his remedies unless proceedings to redeem absolutely were taken. •' DEMURRER IN RE RICHARDSON T. BANK OP NEW , SOUTH - WALES. -' :' _ i Mr. Forward applied that this case might stand over, as it had been arranged that it should not come on till next day. He had received a telegram from Mr. Connolly, who was detained at Nelson, but would be in Wellington next day. ■ The case was allowed to stand over. , DEMURRER IN EE BROWN V. CITY TRAMWAY COMPANY. Mr. Travers appeared in support of the demurrer, and Mr. Ollivier supported the declaration. 1 . * Mr. Travers explained the case at seme length, pointing out that the Corporation consented to the construction of tramways by the promoters, who afterwards’ became the company. It was agreed in writing between the promoters and the contractor, that the latter should construct, and maintain the tramway in good order for twelve months, and this was set forth in the declaration, the particulars of the demand being also appended at schedule prices.’ The demurrer was that the declaration did not show any privity of to entitle the contractor to sue the company on that agreement. The agreement was made between the plaintiff and the promoters, and did not show that there was anything to bring him into privity, with the company. It was an absolutely personal contract with the promoters. If plaintiff had failed in the performance of his contract, the company could not sue him except in the name of the promoters, and Mr. Brown’s: remedy was against the promoters.' The Court of New Zealand had decided that such cases must be brought in the names of the original parties, and the law of England was the same. ■ . . The Case having been fully argued, judgment was ultimately given for plaintiff, the defendants having leave to amend the declaration on payment of the costs of the demurrer. - APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT. ! Mr. Gordon Allan appeared on behalf of the trustees 1 in bankruptcy of Mr. Nathan, in support of an appeal from the decision of the District Court. Mr. Edwards appeared for the respondent. Mr. Allan having fully entered into the case and stated the grounds of appeal, His Honor reserved his decision. MOTION ADJOURNED. A motion for a rule nisi to set aside the decision given in the case of Minifio and Martin was adjourned. Several other cases were postponed, and the Court adjourned till to-day.