HOUSE SALE DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 989, 4 June 1930, Page 12

HOUSE SALE DISPUTE

VENDOR SUES MORTGAGORS SUPREME COURT ACTION The sale of a house property in Logan Street, Dargaville, was the basis of a claim, heard by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court today, for £74 damages for alleged breach of contract, by Elsa Mabel Hadwin, against Clifton C. W. Way and Lionel G. R. Way. A counter-claim for £IOO damages was made by the defendants, who claimed they were induced to enter into the contract to meet certain liabilities on the house by misrepresentations. Mr. Greville appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Ross represented the defendants.

The agreement for the sale and purchase was entered into on January 1, 1927, and the purchasers took over liability a State Advances loan on the property of £575 and gave a second mortgage of £271, interest and principal on which was to be paid at the rate of £25 half-yearly. The following- month, defendants went to live elsewhere, and let the property at the rate of £1 weekly until June 6, 1929. Until April, 1929, defendants made payments under the mortgage. The instalments on the State Advances loan and on the second mortgage that fell due in May were not met. In June last, an agreement under which Mrs. Hadwin took surrender of the house, defendants undertook to pay £69, representing instalments and expenses. The agreement on which the claim was based was tendered by Mr. Greville, and counsel for the defence agreed that if the document was upheld the money was owing. The counter-claim was based on statements allegedly made by plaintiff and her husband. In declining to accept surrender of the house, Mrs. Hadwin had written stating she would have to take further steps unless the interest was paid, seeing the defendants had been receiving the rent and not paying liabiiities. It was further alleged that Hadwin. plaintiff’s husband, had stated that defendants would not be allowed to retain the property unless they obtained a bondsman to guarantee payments by them, that defendants would be held liable for misappropriation of the rentals, that the State Advances superintendent had attached the rental of the house, and that he would take plaintiffs through the courts. Hadwin was alleged to have stated that the State Advances superintendent required the house to be painted immediatelv, and he had been advised by this officer to sue them for breach of contract. (Proceeding)