Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

Raine v McQuoid [1830] NSWSupC 52

specific performance, injunction, equitable principles

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Forbes C.J., Stephen and Dowling JJ, 10 July 1830

Source: Sydney Gazette, 13 July 1830[1 ]

The Court has carefully read over the bill and answer in this case, and upon the whole is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for us to continue the injunction to restrain the Sheriff from proceeding to a re-sale of the Darling Mills, until the parties shall be finally heard in the suit for a specific performance of the contract of sale.  In the mean time, the Curt earnestly recommends the parties to come to an amicable arrangement, rather than continue a course of litigation which must be inconvenient and expensive to both.  As matter of suggestion the Court would intimate that inasmuch as the plaintiff seeks equity, she must do equity, and as at present advised, they think she ought to give good bills to bear date from the time of the sale, without regard to the period that has already elapsed.  This they throw out merely for her consideration.  At present the order is, that the injunction be continued.



[1 ] In James v. Raine, Sydney Gazette, 2 March 1830 (and see Australian, 3 March 1830), Raine's property in the Darling Mills was sold under execution to Mr Keith.  He said, however, that he had acted as agent of Raine's mother.  See also In re Raine, 1830; Australian Company (Browne) v. Raine, Australian, 14 April, and 18 June 1830; and James v. Raine, 1830.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University