INVOLVED CLAIM

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19878, 6 May 1936, Page 6

INVOLVED CLAIM

HAMILTON COURT CASE. MORTGAGII leLs PIOPIITY. . DAIRY Co.\tP.\_\‘Y IMPOL’SD BONUS. An unusually involved claim in respect o! a sum of fit 153 it! Impounded by the New Zealand Co-oP-erative Dairy Company. Limited. “1' heard in the Magistrate's Court. “3"“ llton yesterday before Mr S. L. Paterson. SAL. when George John Baker. at Hamilton. brickmakel‘. sued "10 company and joined as additional defendants James Fraser. sharemllkef. of Olorohanga. and Florence Mary Tldde got Hamilton. l Mr A. L. Tompkins (instructed ‘by Mr J. .\t. Horton‘ represents“ plalnutr. Mr \V. P. Gray the sew 298: land (So-operative Dairy ComputLimited. Mr F. o. R. Phillips wound (or John Fraser. Mrs 'l‘ldd)’ 41‘ W" a ear. pg” Tompkins explained that Johfl Fraser was a share-milker (or MN I‘.\i. Tiddy on her (arm at Rukuhis. The farm had three mortgages on it. the first of £6OOO to the Public Trustee. the second of £750 to plaintiff. 38k"and the third to a man called SimmonFum rte-flue £10.9Mrs Tlddy went bankrupt in September. 1935. and Baker sold up the property tor £70.50. The consent of the first mortgagee had to be obtained before the property could be sold and the Public Trustee had still“lated that the principal of the mortgage and interest owing. amounting to £360, had to be paid to him. After paying commission, rates. interest. and disbursements as well as the money owed the first mortgagee. the net amount Baker received was 5‘31 for his principal of £750 and interest which was owing. The present claim was for money held by the dairy company as Mrs Tiddy's share of bonus payments from the butterfat supplied from the farm. Under the sharemilker‘s agreement between ‘Mrs Tlddy and Fraser. Fraser was to receive 50 per cent of the cream cheques and Mrs Tiddy the other 50 per cent. Fraser was financed by the Dairy Finance Company and he assigned his share to it. while he assigned Mrs Tiddy‘s share to the Public Trustee (less £5 per month) as payment or fnterest, Payment was made lin accordance with the above usinments both before and after the owner of the land went bankrupt. However._ when plaintiff as second mortgagee. sold the property an arrangement was made with the Public Trustee that as ho (plaintlfl‘) had cleared all Mr: Tiddy‘s liabilities he should receive any further payments from the Dairy Company to the Trustee on behall or Mrs Tiddy. Judgment tor Plalntttt. This arrangement was followed by the Public Trustee assigning these moneys to plaintilf. Since the com|pletion ot the deal the amount claimed was impounded by the New Zealand Dairy Company. Limited. His client claimed that the amount was due to him under the assignment from the Public Trustee. Mr Phillips contended that his client had a right to claim for a broken share-milking contract and to set of! his claim against these moneys. but llis \\'orship held that the contract automatically ended when Mrs Tiddy tiled in bankruptcy. .\lr Phillips further stated that the trustee was not 'empowercd to make any arrangement with plaintiff in regard to the bonus money which belonged to MD: Tlddy. without her consent. In giving judgment for plaintlfl Hts Worship held that as plaintiff had cleared .\lrs Tiddy's ”abilities he Wu entitled to any money due to her to onset his loss on the transaction. He therefore gave Judgment in equity and good conscience for plaintin' for “1 15s 4d. The Dairy Company. as stakeholder, was allowed 23 its to be paid out the above amount. Plaintlfl was also allowed costs amounting to :7 !ins (it! against the detendant. Jame. ‘raser.