Stock Agents’ Sued.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1922, Page 3

Stock Agents’ Sued.

AN INTERESTING COURT CASE. • WANGANUI, Feb. 17. A case of very great interest to stock agency firms and farmers occupied three days of the Supreme Court. W. A. Darcy sought to recover £BO2 from Dalgety and Go. and J. H. Powell ,butcher, of Westport, on account of an uncompleted sale of stock. A non-suit was granted in the case of Powell. Darcy sold 97 bullocks to Powell through Dalgety on August 18th, but Powell did not pay by the required time and the stock were sent back to the farm. In October plaintiff sold the ' stock at a loss of £556, having in the interim been put to the expense of grazing the cattle. It was contended for plaintiff that Dalgetys were a well known firm of great reputation, carrying on business and that when a farmer sold stock through a stock firm, the farmer looked to the stock agent to pay the: money and did not look to the actual purchaser for payment, as often the latter’s financial resources were unknown to the vendor. Plaintiff called lengthy evidence to show that that was the universal custom in business. It was further contended that Dalgetys should have made every enquiry in regard to the financial stability of the purchaser of the stock, and notified the vendor.

The issues put to the jury were: (1) Was there a recognised usage amongst stock agents and farmers in the Wanganui district at the time the contract was made under which stock agents undertook in all cases to pay to the vendor the price of the stock sold through the agency of such stock agents, whether or Hot stock the subject of the sale ha<l been delivered to the vendor; (2) When the drover took tlie cattle front the farm, did Dalgetys approve of his act as delivery to purchaser; (3) Was there a recognised usage amongst stock agents mid farmers in such district under which the stock agent owed a duty to the vendors before introducing a proposed purchaser to the principal to make stability of the proposed purchaser to complete the proposed sale and before the making of the contract to communicate the information acquired as the result of such quiries to his principal? Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., for Dnlgetys argued that its there was no precedent to this case there was no itsstgc’ or recognised custom, which placed such liability on the stock agency, contending that the Evidence of the farmers was on I v their opinion. In this case he argued that there was a cash on delivery sale. In the event of credit being given the agency was liable. There bad been no delivery to Powell, because the stock would then have been in Powell’s possession, whereas Dalgetys were determined there should be no delitery until the cash was paid. Mr run I ended thnt issue three was inconsistent wit-lr the rest of plaintiff’s case, which said that a farmer was not corned as to the buyer.

Mr Neave, for Darcy, contended that ample evidence had been adduced to show what was in the minds of the farming community. Even one witness for Dalgetys, a stock agent from Palmerston North, had said lie believed until recently that stock agencies undertook the liability as now alleged. No 1-im had ever been made before because of the rising market. Counsel commented on the amount of correspondence between Dalgetys and Powell and also referred to the recent alteration in the form of a sale note which now said that a vendor would not look to the agent if the purchaser failed. The jury last night returned an answer “Yes” to all the issues. An application is to ho made by Dalgetys for re-hearing 1f a non-suit point already raised fails.