Furphy v Nixon [1925] HCA 34

Furphy v Nixon [1925] HCA 34

The Supreme Court had jurisdiction under a vendor and purchaser summons to order repayment of sums involuntarily paid under threat. The construction of the contract required that, upon the purchaser's election to take land as conditional purchase, interest is chargeable only on the purchase-money as reduced by the amount owing to the Crown at the date of election, and not on the total original purchase price.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Furphy and Others; Respondents; Plaintiffs: Nixon and Another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 1925
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Vendor and Purchaser, Involuntary Payment, Jurisdiction, Repayment of Money Paid Under Threat, Construction of Contract
Equity Property Law Vendor and Purchaser Involuntary Payment Jurisdiction Repayment of Money Paid Under Threat Construction of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Furphy and Others

Appellants; Defendants

Nixon and Another

Respondents; Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction under a vendor and purchaser summons to order repayment of a sum of money involuntarily paid by a purchaser in excess of money due for purchase-money and interest under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether a payment made by a purchaser under an unjustifiable threat by the vendor to rescind the contract constitutes an involuntary payment justifying an order for repayment.
  3. 3 On the true construction of the contract, what is the correct amount on which interest is chargeable after the purchaser has elected to take the land as conditionally purchased.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court had jurisdiction under a vendor and purchaser summons to order repayment of sums involuntarily paid under threat. The construction of the contract required that, upon the purchaser's election to take land as conditional purchase, interest is chargeable only on the purchase-money as reduced by the amount owing to the Crown at the date of election, and not on the total original purchase price.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiffs were only rightly chargeable with interest as specified in the order of Long Innes J.
  • Inquiry referred to the Master in Equity as to the amount properly payable and the amount, if any, by which the defendants have been overpaid.