DISPUTE OVER LAND

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 114, 11 February 1928, Page 13

DISPUTE OVER LAND

CLAIM BY PUBLIC TRUSTEE FAILS Reserved judgment was given by Air. E. Page, S.M., in the Alagistrate’s Court yesterday in the case in which the Public Trustee brought an action against Richard Buckingham Tindall Richardson lor the return ol £56, 10s., paid to him as commission in respect to a block of land lie sold in the city in September. “In July last,” said the Alagistratc, "the Public Trustee, as administrator of an estate, authorised the defendant, who is a land and estate agent, to sell a section of land fronting Wellington Terrace, and agreed to pay him commission at scale rates if a sale were effected to an approved purchaser, who should complete his purchase in accordance with the agreement of sale signed by him. The defendant found a purchaser able and wiling to buy, who on September 28 entered into a biding agreement to buy, and who paid the defendant (as agent for the plaintiff) a deposit of £lOO. The defendant deducted his commission, £56 10s., from the deposit and forwarded the balance to the plaintiff. It was subsequently ascertained by the purchaser that by an Order-in-Council issued under the Public Works Acts no building or part of a buildiiiQ could be erected within 33 feet of the centre line of this street. The effect of this Order-in-Council was that if the purchaser desired to build or alter the premises the frontage would have to be put back some 8 feet, and, as the section is but 38 feet in depth, there would be left an available area slightly less than 30 feet deep.” The Afagistrate went on to say that these facts were not made known to the defendant when he was instructed to sell. The purchaser on learning of this encumbrance on the title, refused to complete, and by agreement between the purchaser and the plaintiff the contract for sale and purchase was cancelled, and a sum of £lOO was returned to the purchaser. "It is urged on behalf of the plaintiff,” continued the Magistrate, “that according to the authority to sell, the defendant is only entitled to commission if a sale is effected to a purchaser ‘who completes his purchase,’ and that as the defendant accepted the authority in this form, and as the purchaser has not completed the purchase, the defendant cannot retain his commission. T do not think the authorities support this contention. Here the defendant lias done all that lie was instructed to do, and the sale went off through the failure of the plaintiff to make a good title. . . . The defendant, therefore, is, in my view, entitled to retain the amount held by him, and judgment will be entered in his favour, with costs to scale.”

At the hearing Air. P. B. Broad appeared for the Public Trustee, while the defendant was represented by Aft". I?. P. Bunnv.