High Court of Australia
20 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 685
a municipality not then in existence, and the second part affects H.C. or A. land which may be built on in the future. Why, then, is the ae "rate" to be confined to the then existing rate? Clearly the — gypyey "land tax," which is a government tax, would extend to any Parsee
future land tax whether on the improved or unimproved value, ™tsstoners and my opinion, on the whole, is that the argument is unsustain- Baratany
able, and the appeal should be allowed. (peer
Appeal allowed. Order wppealed from dis- charged. Appeal to the Supreme Court allowed with costs. Respondents to pay costs of appeal to this Court.
Solicitor, for the appellants, J. V. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales.
Solicitors, for the respondents, Pigott & Stinson. igi
{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)
JEROME :, " - = ' Fi . APPELLANT; DEFENDANT,
WARD : Ss a 4 . c . RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES. [Hy Chomas
Principal and Agent--Vendor and purchaser—Employment as agent to purchase 1916. Jand—Contract of sale by agent to principal—Signature of principal procured LS
by fraud of agent—Rescission—Recovery of deposit—Hvidence. Sypyry, Dec. 6. 'The plaintiff employed the defendant to purchase a certain property
stating that he was willing to pay £14,000 for it, and he promised to pay the Gritith 0.
defendant a certain amount of commission on the purchase. The defendant — Rich Ji
H. C. or A.
1915. ——
JEROME v. Warp.
HIGH COURT [1915.
purchased the property on his own account for £17,000, and by his solicitor presented to the plaintiff for his signature a contract purporting to be made between the defendant himself as vendor, and the plaintiff as purchaser, for the sum of £18,000, On inquiry why the contract was drawn up in that form, the solicitor said that the owners of the property insisted upon their contract of sale being formally made in that way. Relying on that statement, the plaintiff signed the contract, and paid a deposit to the defendant. In an action by the plaintiff to recover the amount of the deposit,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate