Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x8192 Scale: 65% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnailicon minus sign

Article text

Fix this text
View1text corrections for this article
View all articles on this page Previous article Next article
Fri 23 Jun 1922 - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954)
Page 6 - NO. 1 JURY COURT.
NO. 1 JURY COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Ferguson, without Jury).
SALE OF FAULCONBRIDGE SAWMILL.
Snell v Easson.
This action, which, as it involved a question
of law, was tried by his Honor without a
jury, was brought by Charles Frederick Snell
against John Wallace Easson, to recover
£1088/7/9 upon a deed executed on September
15th, 1920, by which defendant covenanted to
fulfil certain conditions prescribed by another
deed dated September 10th of the same year.
It was stated on behalf of the plaintiff that
the deed of September 10 provided that if
default were made by certain purchasers from
Snell in carrying out their contract, a com-
pany known as Hardwoods, Ltd., within a
certain time, should pay £1000, or tho bal-
ance of purchase money then due. On the
date mentioned, plaintiff being in possession
of the Faulconbridge Sawmill, together with
512 acres of land, contracted to sell to Francis
James Searle and Lawrence George Moncrieff
for £4000 the contract, providing that pay-
ment should be made by monthly instalments
of £108/6/8. On September 15 an agreement
was made between plaintiff, Searle and Mon-
crieff, Hardwoods, Ltd., and the defendant, by
which Hardwoods, Ltd., undertook that, in the
event of there being any instalment unpaid
for a period of over seven days, upon notice
to them, they would pay within another
seven days, £1000 on the purchase
money, or take over the benefits and
liabilities of the purchasers. The payments
were irregularly made, and in the following
May £108/6/8 was owing under thw deed, in
addition to a sum of £116/13/4. To meet
these arrears a cheque of £108/6/8 was paid,
leaving the other amount still owing, and
a further agreement was made, under which
the £116/13/4, and some other moneys that
were due to the plaintiff by Searle and Mon-
crieff, were secured by separate promissory
notes, two of which were in question in the
present action. The next instalment, due in
June, was not paid, and although notice was
given to Searle and Moncrieff, and, within the
period prescribed, to Hardwoods, Ltd., and
Easson, the £1000 was not paid. In his plead-
ings defendant alleged that the property the
subject of the agreement was not the plain-
tiff's, nor had he obtained a title to it. To
this plaintiff replied that he did own the
property, and under the agreement (1) was
bound to obtain a title free from mortgage
or encumbrance. If there was any default on
plaintiff's part it might entitle Searle and
Moncrieff, to rescind the contract, which they
never did. With respect to the promissory
notes the defendant set up that they were the
subject of a District Court action, in which
judgment had been given for the defendant.
That raised a question as to whether the mat-
ter was res judicatur. Defendant also pleaded
that the £1000 did not become due under the
covenant, nor did it become payable through
default. Mr. Lamb, K.C., and Mr. Hardwick
(Instructed by Messrs. Sly and Russell) ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Haise Rogers
and Mr. Markell (Instructed by Messrs. Creagh
and Creagh) for the defendant.
The case is part heard.