I'ANSON V. GREENE 80/1937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

. aa ve Gorn e REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. Judgment delivered wrt . on 23ad tnrgbenine: \ABe-

1B. J. GREK, Government Printer, Melbourne.

oo, ; ZO hast

I'ANSON ve GREENE

Order.

Appeal allowed with costs. Decree of Supreme Court +

discharged and suit dismissed with costs. Cross appeal

dismissed with costs.

Ne

L'ANSON ve GREENE. Reasons for Judgment. The Chief Justice. i

In 1931 the defendant Leonard Nourse I'Anson owed to the plaintiff William Pomeroy Crawford Greene £18,719 balance due on a

mortgage of a property khown as Mount Oriel which the defendant had

purchased from the plaintiff under a contract made in 1926. The purchase price was £29,320.14.0 and the original amount of the mortgage debt was £23,456. In 1931 wool and wheat were at very low prices and a general depression affected the whole community. I'Anson had fallen into arrears in payments of instalments under the mortgage and of interest. He took a very gloomy view of his prospects and put his case before Mr. H.C.M, Garling who was the plaintiff's solicitor and attorney- He asked for a reduction of ver

at least £6000 in the principal and also, a reduction in the rate of

interest. He described his financial position and prospects in

letters which he wrote to the plaintiff and to Garling, and he also

had interviews with Garling upon the subject. The plaintiff,

advised by Carling, made a substantial concession to the defendant,

reducing the principal monies by £5500 and also reducing the

interest rate and extending the time for repayment of the principal

monies. The document effecting the reduction was executed on

24th July 1933 and was duly registered under the Real Property Act.

Garling (in a letter of S% April 1933) had already suggested to the

plaintiff ( who was in England) some criticism of the defendant's conduct in relation to his application for a concession, and, after the document had been signed by Garling as plaintiff's attorney, the plaintiff came to share Garling's suspicion that the defendant had not been as frank as he had pretended to be and the result of >