T do not think ip is necessary nor "profitable" for me to analyze the motive actuating the parties, but T will turn straight away to the evidence before the Coury to test the soundness of his argument.
jow, what is ice? There the evidence of Mr, C. E, Peacock Hankow, the firm of iron in December, 121." Me states tint on December 20, 1921, he went to the Bank himself tol} obtain confirmation of their refusal to aveept Dill tendered by his firm and ascertain their reecons: and further that he was informed that the Bunk refused the bill ly sucpendthe cor-nce referred to by Mr. id. The first letter dated SI, 1921, a repudiation by one party: must 0 to. the root of the con root ty entitl> the rescind (Mersey Steel & trun Naylor & Ca.
In my opinion the rebud ly the Bank went to the rut of the contracts, The contracts. were for the supply of money by the Bank against bills of Arnhuld Brothers Ca, Ltd,, the very essence of the contracts was for the supply of nancy and this the to supply.
Finally, the point that there way breach' by Arnhold Brothers in not tendering bills Hount out-standing on the contracts seems to me to have no weight. There was a tender by them, there was a refusal of the Dill; this refusal entitled Arnhold Brothers & Ca., Ltd., to rescind and relieved them from' the obligation of tendering further bills (Hochster De la Tour 1853, 2 E. and 678 and ride also Mersey Steel Iron Ca, Naylor & Ca. subra), Tam of opinion therefore that nix appeal should be di with costs, stairense,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.