Harvey v Edwards Dunlop and Company Limited [1927] HCA 13

Dised Feast Ped dy 'Lad (in lig) tate, Cat 302 HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

DrrenDAnt,

EDWARDS, DUNLOP AND COMPANY LIMITED Reso: PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. o A, Contract—Guarantee—Parol agreement to answer for the debt of another—Me 1927. in writing—Liability imposed on particular asset—Statute of Frauds (29 0 ue ©. 8), sec. 4—Instruments Act 1915 (Viet.) (No. 2672), sec. 228.

ape 'The respondent entered into an oral agreement with the appellant ——'~* company in which the appellant was interested, whereby it was agreed t Sypney, in consideration of the respondent refraining from signing judgment April 13. action against the company the appellant would execute a power of Knox OJ, authorizing the attorney to sell certain property of the appellant in Tegacs, Higeins, at such time and upon such terms as would allow the attorney to pay and Starke JJ. for which the company was sued to the respondent at its London office be

a certain date, and the appellant would so instruct the attorney. An i term of the agreement was that the appellant had not done and do anything calculated to impede the sale. In an action in the Suy Court of Victoria by the respondent against the appellant for a bre this agreement, Dixon A.J. held that the agreement was not a special p) to answer for the debt of another within the meaning of sec. 228 Instruments Act 1915 (Vict.) and that therefore no note or memoral

appeal to the High Court,

Held, that the appeal should be dismissed :

By Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ., on the ground that, the agreement was or was not a special promise to answer for the d another, certain correspondence which took place between the solicito

-

39 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 303

the parties and the power of attorney were so connected together as to H.C. or A. constitute a memorandum in writing containing all the terms of the agreement, 1927. which was sufficient to satisfy sec. 228 ; saad