Goldsbrough, Mort and Co Ltd v Tolson [1909] HCA 80

Goldsbrough, Mort and Co Ltd v Tolson [1909] HCA 80

The right to repayment of tax under the certificates was a personal right (chose in action) and did not pass under the words 'chattels and effects' in the conveyance or mortgage deeds, which by context and specificity referred to tangible items appurtenant to the stations. Accordingly, the certificates and corresponding funds remained with the respondent and were not assigned to the appellants.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Goldsbrough, Mort & Co. Ltd.; Respondent; Plaintiff: Tolson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent
Legal Topics
Assignment of Rights, Interpretation of Conveyances, Meat and Dairy Produce Encouragement Acts
Property Law Choses in Action Mortgage Law Assignment of Rights Interpretation of Conveyances Meat and Dairy Produce Encouragement Acts

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldsbrough, Mort & Co. Ltd.

Appellants; Defendants

Tolson

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certificates representing the right to repayment of taxes under the Meat and Dairy Produce Encouragement Acts passed to the appellants under a mortgage or conveyance of 'chattels and effects' upon the stations.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to repayment of tax under the certificates was a personal right (chose in action) and did not pass under the words 'chattels and effects' in the conveyance or mortgage deeds, which by context and specificity referred to tangible items appurtenant to the stations. Accordingly, the certificates and corresponding funds remained with the respondent and were not assigned to the appellants.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment of the Chief Justice of Queensland affirmed.