GLASHEEN V. TAYLOR

0.5000,

H. J. Gamex, Gorerament Printer, Melbourne.

\

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALI

APPEALS TO 7q\

Judgment delivered at. a dehoke

NE Dohchin iw. |

Appeal dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal allowed with costs. Order of Supreme Court varied by adding thereto an order that plaintiff pay to'defendant the costs of the

summons and of the appeal to the Full Court.

GLASHEE) Ve TAYLOR.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. . LATHAM C.J.

i

GLASHEEN Ve TAYLOR,

JUDGMENT.

This appeal raises the question of the true interpretation of a provision in a mortgage of lend under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 the parties to which were Arthur Muggleton and Ernest Kimberley Bridge. The mortgage was executed on 10th .December 19:3. It contained provisions ordinarily to be found in mortgages under the Act. It was provided that the

expression "the mor gor , where the context so admits or requires,

shall extend to and include the mortgagor and the executors administrators and transferees of the mortgavor and that the expression "the mortgagee , where ths context so admits ," shall include his successors and assigns. The mortgagor covenanted

trans—

with the mortgazee, first, "To pay to the mortgagee or iv

ferees the sum of three hundred ;ounds (£300) annually in reduction

of the principal sum the first of such payments to be made on the

y of

50tn a dune 19d: and on the 50th day of June in each and

every year the last payment to be on the 30th June 1953." There was no provision for the payment of interest. The mortgage provided that"for better securing the payment in manner aforesaid o" the said principal sum and the observance and performance of the covenants herein contained and implied herein under 'The Transfer

of Land Act 1893'" the said Bridge did mortgage his estate in the

land. It will be observed that the mortsage is for the purpose