A LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 258, 24 October 1908, Page 6

A LAND AGENT'S COMMISSION

Al'l'EAL CASE—NOPS v. KELLY. JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANTS. Mr. Justice Deniiistou has delivered judgment as follows in the appeal case, Ediwin Xops and another v. Patrick Kelly, in which Mr. Anderson (Malone, Anderson and Johnstone) appeared for appellants and Mr. Kerr for respondeat. lilie appellants, commission agents, were instructed by tile respondent, a farmer, to either sell his farm at £3 10s { iper acre, or cil'ect an exchange" lit ..14 per acre. As a result of these instructions tiie appellants negotiated an agreement l>y which the respondent agreed to sell his farm to .one Hills in exchange for property of the respondent, the latter to receive a sum of £O2O or thereabouts by way of equity of exchange. The respondent's I aim was held under lease in perpetuity. The appellants and Hills knew Wat Ilills already owned enough laud to make it impossible to make the declaration required under the Lind Act of 18112. Jt may be taken, though the fact is not actually stated, that respoaueiic liad the same knowledge. The transfer of the respondent's laud was to be to Hills' appointee and possession was to be given and taken fourteen days after the Land Board for the Taranaki Laud District had consented to the transfi-r of the respondent's land. There were a number of complicated stipulations as to the arrangements of purchase money, payment of mortgages, and such like. It was contended for the appellants that they had earned tlveir eommi-sioii when this agreement was obtained, as they had got a solvent buyer, accepted by the seller. 11 is Honor thought, however, that, as the agreement was not the out-and-out sale or exchange tlr.-y were authorised to obtain, and as there was no evidence of

} >lly agreement it is a reasonable conclusion tlial it was the satisfactory completion of ilir Ira-nsnction—the ultimate transfer of the respective properties--t hat would entitle Iho in to commission. The agreement was never complet'd. Hills had first suggested his wife as his appointee to take the transfer, but ultimately appointed one Cannell. A memorandum of transfer, an application to the Land Board for consent and a declaration in support, were duly forwarded to the Land Board. Canned, after the matter had been before the Board, was withdrawn, he giving as a reason that lie wanted to take up other land. His llonor was not satisfied. that this refusal did not justify the respondent in treating the agreement as at an end. lie had done all he could to have the land transferred in terms of his agreement to the appointee of Hills'. Was lie under any obligation to wuU.-' till Hills found another appointee, who might again "withdraw or be declined? ilow long was this process to continue? The respondent refused to go on with (he transaction. Hills sued him in connection with his refusal. What lie grounds of the action were did not appear. The action was not proceeded with. It seems to have been compromised by the agreement of Ist of October 15)1*7, a copy of which is attached to die case. Hills thereby undertook to find within three months a purchaser for the respondent'* farm at the price ol\U3 Lis an acre in cash, in default of so doing the original agreement was to be cancelled. Hills did find a purchaser. The agreement come to by the parties was not that which the appellants procured. There was nothing to show that the non-completion of this last was due to the wrongful act of the respondent; the suggestion is rather the other way. The final agreement was between the same parties, and partly referred to the same matter. But his Honor agreed with the Magistrate that this was not sufficient to entitle the appellants l,y judgment on a 'quantum meruit." The sale was to another party by Hills. All the respondent, as far as it appears, got Jrom the exertions of the appellants was a lawsuit. The prospective buyer whom they introduced arranged, by wy of settling the lawsuit, to jind a purchaser for the respondent, llis Honor Ihoughi with Ihe Magistral . (hat Hits is much too n-innie a connection with transaction with the appellants to entitle them to commission. The appeal was dismissed with ;Cio 10s costs.