Furphy v Nixon [1925] HCA 34

37 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

FURPHY AND OTHERS . ' F " . APPELLANTS ; DEFENDANTS, AND NIXON AND ANOTHER . 7 ; A . RESPONDENTS. PLAINTIFFS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Vendor and Purchaser—Originating summons—JIurisdiction of Supreme Court of New South Wales—Order for repayment of money paid involuntarily—Involuntary payment—Money paid under unjustifiable threat—Equity Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 24 of 1901), Fourth Schedule, r. 6.

Held, (1) that the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equitable jurisdiction has, on a vendor and purchaser summons under rule 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the Bquity Act 1901 (N.S.W.), jurisdiction to order repayment of 'a sum of money involuntarily paid by a purchaser in excess of the money due for purchase-money and interest thereon ; and (2) that a payment by a purchaser in excess of the money so due made under an unjustifiable threat by the vendor that he will rescind the contract is an involuntary payment which will justify an order for repayment.

'The appellants agreed to sell to the respondents certain conditionally purchased land in respect of which all the conditions imposed by the Crown Lands Acts had been fulfilled, except payment of the balance of purchase- money due to the Crown, which balance was payable by instalments, consisting partly of principal and partly of interest, extending over a number of years. By the contract the price payable for the land was on a freehold basis, and was to be paid by instalments of 5 per cent on the signing of the contract, 5 per cent on a certain day in each of the three following years, and the balance on that day in the fourth year. 'The respondents agreed to pay interest, on so much of the purchase-money as for the time being remained unpaid, at a specified