A LAND TRANSACTION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 99, 26 April 1912, Page 2

A LAND TRANSACTION.

TSMANOI'IjAH cask. Air C. w. Kcnrick, S.M., liar, tuivon Ids reserved jncli»iont in tlio ease i'i the Eltbam Court in which -Tames McVeairh, solicitor, claimed ih~> from Itlennerhassett and Son and Alexander AtcE'.van, the amount being stated to bo an overpayment in connection with

the purchase money of McEwan's farm , tin.' sale; being effected through Ulennerhassctt ami Son to Thoinns'Taylor, of Riverlea. The S.M., after reciting the particulars of the claim, .said: The evidence, in my opinion, proves the following fads: (i) That the defendants, Blennerhassett and Son, were agents for defendant McEwan and as such agents received the sums of £5 and £2O deposits on account and the sum ol £/5 on account of purchase money, a total of £IOO. (2) That the plaintiff McVeagh, acting as solicitor for the vendor and purchaser, paid £375 instead of '£3oo into defendant McEwan's hank. Thus, together with the £IOO in McEwan's agents' hands, he (McEwan) received a total of £<l7o instead of £IOO, the total cash to lie paid down. (3) That at the time of the settlement, namely. .'June 20th, 1911, the plaintiff MoVeagh held an order, dated June 17th, from defendant McEwan to pay £3Ol 2s Jld to his (McEwan's) account. (4) That after the conveyance had been completed and later on the same day McEwan returned to plaintiff's office and told plaintiff not to part with the deeds until Blennerhassett and Son had paid him (plaintiff) £75. (5) That plaintiff did part with the deeds and on June 22nd paid the said £375 into .McEwan's account. (6) That at a subsequent date plaintiff took an assignment of the £75 overpaid from Taylor and gave due notice to all the defendants and new sues for that amount paid by mistake. ' McEwan, in his evidence, says at the settlement when Taylor made out a cheque for only £3OO he asked for the £75 short and Blennerhassett, who was also present, repled, "I have the money in my safe for yon," and McEwan said that on the strength of that he signed the deeds which completed the business, to use his own words. Later in the-day he says he returned to M.cVoagh's office and told him not to part with the deeds until he received the £75 from Blennerhassett. The transaction had then been completed, and the plaintiff McVeagh could not in my opinion refuse to part with the deeds. McEwan had prior to signing the deeds given McVeagh an order to pay £3OO to his (McEwan's) account. He had also satisfied himself that his agents (Blennerhassett and Sons) held the balance of the purchase money. I cannot see how he can now successfully contend that his agents were, not authorised to receive the several sums totalling £IOO from the purchaser. I think it is clear McEwan confirmed, by his actions at the settlement Blennerhassett's authority to receive and hold the balance of cash for him if they did not already hold sufficient express authority to receive the money; the giving an order for £3OO instead of £375 to McVeagh, and First ascertaining his agents held the balance for him before signing the deeds -is strong evidence of this. It is evident from the evidence" McEwan changed his mind after the comple-, tion of the transaction and wanted the £75 out of the agents' hands as lie feared they would retain it for commission, which it is proved they have done. The evidence proves plaintiff McVeagh paid on behalf of Taylor, the purchaser, two days' after the transaction was completed, £37-') instead of £3OO to McEwan's account in mistake owing, as far as 1 can see from the evidence, to a pressure oi business and the fact of a number of cheques being given and replaced by others during the negotiations for] sale. McVeagh has taken an assignment from the purchaser of the £75 overpaid and is, in my opinion on the evidence before me, entitled to recover the amount from McEwan. I cannot see he (McVeagh) has recourse against the defendants Blennerhassett and Sons as they still hold the money on behalf of McEwan and have to account to McEwan for it, and the evidence ■shows they claim against McEwan an equal amount as commission. If McEwan thinks they have no right to more than £25 of the £IOO they hold for him he has his remedy by action against-them. I give judgment for plaintiff McVeagh for the £75 paid by mistake against McEwan with costs. And judgment is for the defendants Blennerhassett ami Sons against McEwan with costs. Costs to be settled by the Clerk of the Court, with reference to me in case of the parties not being satisfied' with the amounts he arrives at. Costs have since been settled, McEwan having to pay McVeagh £8 lis 9d and to Blennerhassett and Sons £3 17 s.