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
View0text corrections for this article
View all articles on this page Previous article Next article
Sat 24 Jun 1922 - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954)
Page 9 - NO. 1 JURY COURT.
Jv'O. 1 JUHY COUBT.
(Before Mr. Justice Ferguson, Avlthout Jury).
SALE OF I'AULCON'BRIDGE SAWMILL.
Snell v Eassou.
I This action, which, as it involved a question
of law, waa tried by his Honor without a
Jury, was brought by Charles Frederick Snell
against John Wallnco Easson, managing
director of Hardwoods Ltd to recover
£1088/7/0 upon a deed executed on September
luth 1 20 b) which defendant covenanted to
fullll certain conditions prescribed by another
deed dated September 10th of tho samo jcar
It was btated ou behalf of tho plaintiff that
lue deo I of September lu provided that if
default were mado b) certain purchasers from
Snell lu earning out their contrae! a com
I any known as Hardwoodf Ltd within a
reitaln time bhoull p»} .1000 or the bal
anco of purchase money then due On the
date nifiitlouej plaintif being In possession
of the laulconljillie Sawmill tigetber with
612 acres of Ian 1 coutr_cled to sell to Tiaucls
James Searle a id I iwreuco George Moncrieff
j for _ 1000 t e contract providing that pa)
mein should bo made b) monthly instilments
I ni £103 t. S On "^ptctnber 15 an ngreeraeut
vvab male betiweu i Ialutlff Searle and Mon
crieff Hardwood!- ltd rnd the defendant b)
which Hardwvjodj Ltd undertook that in th*
event of there bein" n> instalment unpaid
tor a period of OVPI SU n iii i upon nolle
to llicni the) A ou M j aj w I hin another
s At>n da} ) £U00 on fhe iuicb.no
monee o takt> ovci tho benefits _n 1
liabilities of the juichai-eis The pi menls
were irrcgularh made and in the following
Ma} _10S G ¡> wes owing under the deed ia
addition to a s jin of £110/1"/' lo loe t
tn<iBc an r ii a i beque of _10J/C/S HIIJ I al I
leaving the other amount =tlll AW lilt nud
a lurtber agiccnieut was mil" und r which
the £110 IS 4 urti -.onie other monevs that
were due to the plain Iff bv Searle and Mon-
crieff were secured by «. parate promissory
notes tv o cf yvnich w/ic In question iu the
present action The ue^r ins altnciu ti jo in
Juno was not pail and a chough notice was
given to Seail* end Alonri ieff and y Ithln the
period prescribe! to Hirdwood Ltd and
Eatfson tho £10(0 w is not raid In bis plead
ings lefendant I gej that tte p opert) the
»ubjeet of the agrefment WJS not the pljlu
tiffs nor lal he obtain d a title to it To
t o iluintif uplicd that lie till own the
prop tv and uuder tbc abre» ncnt WJS
bound to obtatu a title free ft otu uiorte.ae.o
or encumbi mc- If theic wa am default ou
plaintiffs pait It might entitle Scerle and
Moncrieff to re-find the coutr ct which thev
neAer did With re peet to the pioml^sory
notes the defendant tet up tnat the) were tbo
subject of a District Court action in which
judgment had been tiven tor the d fendant
Tant raised a question a to wheth r the mat
ter was res Jidieutur Defendant Iso i leaded
tnat the £1000 did not become due under tho
covenant nor dil It become payable through
default 'ir Lamb KI an 1 Mr Har wick
(Instruct 1 bj Messrs si} ma Russell) ap
peared for the olaln lit rnd Mi Hal^e Rogers
and Mr Mai kell (l sstructed by Messrs Crea.h
and CreagL) for the r-ieudant
In tho course rf lus Judgmei t his Ilono
said that the Distiiet Court judgment on
the projii soi notes fcivrn decided nothing on
the question v hetber tie note was dulj pro
sented on iib due date and wa- then dis
honoured So that the Issue decided in thp
District Coan v ab not the sr me Issue as
arose for hH Hoi or s dclu initiation here aud
consequentlv there was no cstoppal Ho found
for the plaintiffs on th» pioril£3or) notes
valued at £SS "76 each with inteiost amount
Ing to £i Being of opinion that notice of de
fault of pavraonl of the Juno instalment did
not reach Hardwoods I to as provided bj
the covenant ho ertered a vol Jkt foi the de
fondant on the cl-Im for £1000
Defendant wa. g-anted a staj of proceed
Ings in rcpect of the flnaius on tho promiB
tor) note issue