Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited v Russell [1931] HCA 7

146 HIGH COURT

H.C. or A. of the lease within the meaning of sec. 27 (4) (a) consisting of th 880, period from that date until 4th February 1941. (2) (6) Within th Srerues operation of sec. 27. (3) A fee simple unencumbered by Feotrar, conditions of the Crown grant and the Australian Jockey Club Act Counts: 1873 and the lease. (4) To the first part, No; to the second, it

SIONER OF Laxp Tax. does amount to or create "a similar interest."

Questions answered as set out at the end of the judgment of Isaacs C.J. Costs of and occasioned by case stated to be costs in appeal.

Solicitors for the appellant, Macnamara & Smith. Solicitor for the respondent, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor fo

the Commonwealth. ' J.B.

REE KIS3- PE ww 4a F 2 b19RbOT Towwv190 : 63s 340 ie Ga « Gaui 7h * 274 (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA] PERPETUAL EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED APPEI AND ANOTHER . | OA -— sa(o.se)S.R.29° PLAINTIFFS,

69 we. 32 " AND Lal 9 2.C4R, 349. , RUSSELL 5 i : 5 _ 2 E . ReEsPoNnpDENI vd at fb (42. DEFENDANT, qe)ane wreh- Sou. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF : VICTORIA. H.C. or A 1931, Landlord and tenant—Parol demise—Option to purchase—Evzercise of option—Pard nay agreement to purchase—Unenforceable by action—Possession by p Feb. 16. Action to recover land by vendor's successor in title—Whether parol agreeme? = purchase could be relied wpon by purchaser in possession—Instruments At Sypwry, 1928 (Vict.) (No. 3706), sec. 128. April 1. a pee The plaintiffs' predecessor in title by parol demised certain land to th C.J., Starke, defendant for a term of three years and by parol gave an option to purch

menatt,2™¢; the land to the defendant, which option the defendant exercised.

45 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

defendant remained in possession, and the plaintifis brought an action in the Supreme Court claiming a declaration that they were entitled to possession of the land. The defendant, relying upon his possession and the exercise of the option to purchase, contested the plaintifis' claim, but also counterclaimed for specific performance of the option of purchase. The Supreme Court having dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, they appealed to the High Court from that decision, The counterclaim was also dismissed, but the defendant did not appeal against such decision,