AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 161 wordsW. Comer Petheram, C.J.—I think that we cannot interfere in this case. The only question which we have to decide is, whether the existence of a right of pre-emption in a person who is a co-sharer in possession enables him to resist an action for possession by the purchaser of the rights of another co-sharer. Before a right of pre-emption can be claimed, several things, such as tender of the price and refusal, must be alleged. The argument that the plaintiff has not paid the price is not one that helps the appellant. If he has a right of preemption, he is competent to assert that right in a separate suit, but not as defendant in this suit. The plaintiffs-purchasers are entitled to possession, and we must therefore affirm the decision of the Courts below, and dismiss this appeal with costs.
Tyrrell, J.
2.I concur in the decision of the learned Chief Justice that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.