S.M. COURT.-YESTERDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 62, 14 March 1900, Page 3

S.M. COURT.-YESTERDAY.

R. Burrow and Co. v. George Carter. —A case of considerable importance to estate agents was decided yesterday by Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M. The plaintiff, who is an estate agent, claimed te recover from defendant the sum of £20, being commission on sale of a. house iii College Road to Mr H. N. Bagnail. The evidence was that in August last, Carter being desirous of selling his house, placed it in Burrow's hands , for sale. Burrows requested Carter to sign a form giving Burrow the exclusive agency for three months, but Carter declined to do so, and placed the property in the hands of "several other agents. The plaintiff introduced the property to the notice of Mr Bagnall, who did not then purchase, but did a-month subsequently through another..- agent.. (DeWar), in whose hands it had also been put for sale. Mr E. Mahony for .plaintiff. -argued that as Burrow had first introduced the purchaser, he was entitled to the usual commission, and quoted English authorities. Mr C. J. Parr for defendant, cited a New Zealand case, W ralton v. Edwards, in which Mr Justice Richmond held that where property is placed in several agents' hands for . sale, the agent who actually brought about the purchase was entitled to the commission, even though the purchaser had been first introduced by, another agent. His Worship in giving judgment said it appeared to him that the plaintiff had not clearly, proved that the sale had been the result of his introductions, and judgment was accordingly entered for de-« fendant with costs.