LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1609, 28 November 1912, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL

GLENBROOK STATION SALE. COMMISSION FEE. The question as to whether a firm of land ngents had earned commission for the work done by them in finding a purchaser for the Qlenbrook Station, Hawke's Bay, was decided hy the Court of Appeal in a reserved judgment delivered yesterday. At the hearing of the case, (lie Bench was occupied by Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Dennisfon, and Mr. Justice Edwards, but yesterday the Court comprised only the Chief Justice. (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Cooper. The parties concerned in the action were Kenneth M'Kenzie, fanner, Hawke's Bay, appellant, and Harcourt and Co., land agents, Wellington, respondents. Mr. C. P. Skerrctt, K.C., with Mr. J. H. G. Murdoch, of Napier, appeared for tho appellant, while Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. D. M. Findlay, appeared for Harcourt and Co.

In the original action in the Supremo Court, it was stated that M'Kenzie held Glenbrook Station, a. property which was composed to a considerable extent of leasehold land. Ho instructed Harcourt and Co. to sell the property with certain stock, crops, and chattels, for .£16,300, out of wliioh Harcourt and Co. were to receive .£350 as commission. They claimed <£35(S on tho ground that an agreement of sale had been completed, and that it would have ' been effected but for the conduct of M'Kenzie.

In defence, M'Kenzie contended that Harcourt and Co. had entered into a contract which was a breach Df his instructions, and was not binding. He denied, therefore, that had earned a commission, and claimed that as no deposit had been taken, a breach of his instructions had been committed. He coun-ter-claimed for ,£7OO (the amount of deposit ho had stipulated for) as damages. His Honour decided in favour of Harcourt and Co. In. giving judgment, ho' said that at the. time when, plaintiffs were prevented by defendant from having the contract completed they had found a purchaser able and willing to complete' the purchase. They were, therefore, entitled 1 to their commission. Judgment would ho for plaintiffs on the claim for the amount sued for, .£350, and also on the counterclaim, with costs. From this decision M'Kenzie appealed, on the ground that it was •erroneous in Mr. Justice Cooper read the judgment of the Court,' which showed that their. Honours had' come to the conclusion that tho appeal should bo dismissed. Judgment was given accordingly .with costs against the appellant, the question of scale being reserved for further argument.