LAND ALAND AGENCY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 143, 18 June 1926, Page 8

LAND ALAND AGENCY CASE.

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.! HAMILTON, this day. A case of great interest to land agents was heard in the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday in which Lionel Le Grand Jacob, land agent, Te Kuiti, sued John Ramsay Morton, land agent, of the same town, for £177, being halfshare of a commission to which he alleged he was entitled on the sale of a farm at Awakino. The facts, briefly, were that a man named Rollo, in company with a Hamilton land agent named Martin Williams, went to Te Kuiti. Rollo wanted to exchange certain shop property in Auckland for a King Country farm. They called at Morton's office, but Morton was out. They then went along to Jacob's office. They told Jacob the nature of their business, and the latter was unable to attend to the business, as he had to go away to New Plymouth. He said he would introduce them to another agent named Morton. Williams made it clear to Jacob that he, Williams, was not going to reduce any commission on a sale to thirds, and that he wanted half. He told Jacob that any, introduction, therefore, was not to be regarded as an introduction, as generally understood between agents. Morton was introduced by Jacob to the other two and properties were talked over. Jacob then went away and took no further part in any transactions between the parties. The possible deals discussed on that first occasion did not come to anything, and Rollo and Williams left Te" Kuiti. Two months later they returned to Te Kuiti and interviewed Morton, when Rollo said he was now in a position to buy a farm for cash. Morton got busy and arranged a cleal. Williams got half the commission and he, Morton,- the other half.

Jacob, hearing of the sale, claimed 25 per cent of the commission, that was, half of that received by Morton. This Morton refused, holding that tbe transaction was entirely separate from the first one proposed.

In giving judgment his Honor said it was stated that a custom existed which gave Jacob an absolute rirjht to claim commission in this ease. It was said that this right existed by virtue of a mere act of introduction. ' He was not prepared to say that it was sufficiently established that the custom prevailed; he preferred to judge the case apart altogether from tlie question of custom. In liis opinion the evidence indicated that there were two separate and distinct transactions. The original transaction ended and disappeared, and it was not until two months later that Kollo and Williams came along with an entirely different proposal, and this was successfully carried into effect by Morton independently of Jacob That being the view his Honor took he thought Jacob failed in bis action and be therefore gave judgment for defendant with costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.