Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT

PALMERSTON NORTH SESSIONS. By Telegraph —Press Association. Palmerston North, Yesterday. A case of importance to fanners and seed merchants occupied the Supreme Court for three days, Mr. Justice Cooper presiding. Rodder and Tolley, Ltd., bought seventy acres of a standing crop of crested dogstail from Ellis Bros., Bulls, but refused to take delivery on ( the ground that the seed was not firstclass and that the area was more than stipulated. On the latter ground an interesting non-suit point was raised by Mr. Myers for the defence, that fge contract note stated that Ellis Bros, undertook to supply seed from 70 acres and under the Sale of floods Act provisions as to quantity had to be exactly fulfilled. On the" other hand it was held that a contract for an area was not a contract for an exact quantity within the definition of the Sale of Goods Act, anil that it would be impossible for it to be so regarded. Even the area was estimated and not according to survey, and it would be necessary for a surveyor to follow the harvesters to get the exact measurements. Defendants admitted that their contract forms did not' provide for "more or less." but for the exact area. The non-suit point was reserved, but on the other point, that the seed was not first-class, judgment was given for plaintiffs. Ellis Bros., His Honor holding that defendants had no riu'ht to reject the seed. Palmerston N., Last Night. An interesting case was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday, when S. W. Fitzgerald, solicitor, sued B. E. Murphy, of Mclntvre and Murphy, solicitors, Feilding, to rescind a ■compromises and settlement of accounts. In March, 11)10, plaintiff was a partner of Melntyrc's, and sold his share to defendant for £32.5, £25 cash down. The profits over £250 per annum were to be paid until the amount totalled £3OO. In June, 1011. plaintiff accepted .CHID for hi* share. Plaintiff alleged that lie accepted £IOO because defendant stated that he was only making a (bare living. After hearing evidence Mr. Justice Cooper nonsuited plaintiff with costs on the lowest scale. His Honor asked the parties to meet together and try and make some arrangement.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19120702.2.40

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 314, 2 July 1912, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
367

SUPREME COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 314, 2 July 1912, Page 5

SUPREME COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 314, 2 July 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert