INTERPRETATION OF LAW

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 473, 1 October 1928, Page 13

INTERPRETATION OF LAW

appeal court case GISBORNE M.P. SUES COMPANY Press Association WELLINGTON, To-day. The Court of Appeal was to-day enln luring the case, William : L^ 8 " a s’ Gisborne, solicitor. 1 nnvT * e lchet ’ McLeod and Cornpany. Limited. Appellant appeared in th 2 respondent company represented by Messrs. M. Myers and Wauchop. \rc h w CU £ e onsists of ti?o appeals of r.r ’-» ‘ Lys “ ar from the decisions if J * atic 9 Ostler given in August oi this year. tacta leadil >e to the first apneal are that in March, 1926, Mr. G. H Lysnar, brother of the appellant, borfrom the respondent company A.0.U00. and to secure in part this adW° appellant executed in favour of respondent company a guarantee to the tent of £3,000. The deed of guaranteo contained the provision that appellant should not be entitled to call upon the respondent company to transpr to him whatever securities they held m respect of the debt until the Whole of the moneys due to them by O H. Lysnar should be paid in 1927. . .•£r r ‘ .S’ H Lysnar got into financial difficulties and a demand was mado upon appellant for the amount of his guarantee in June of that year. Appellant replied stating that he would pay the amount providing that the respondent company would immediately upon payment transfer to him all securities they held from G. H. Lysnar to secure their whole indebtedness. This they refused to do, and an action was brought on the guarantee bond. Judgment was given for the respondent company for the sum of £3,000 and interest from the date of the first demand. Appellant is now appealing from this decision on the ground that it is erroneous in its determination of the law.