COMMISSION ON SALE OF LAND

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 198, 19 May 1936, Page 5

COMMISSION ON SALE OF LAND

Reserved Judgment Given Palmerston North, May IS. Reserved judgment in a case heard last week in which the executrices <>£ the estate of the late Thomas James Killiek, of Palmerston North, claimed £133/6/8 from Mrs. Bessie .Holmes, of zkshhurst, Albert George Havill, of Ashhurst and Leslie James Lest, company director, as commission allegedly payable on the sale of a section of land at Ashhurst, was delivered in the Palmerston North Supreme Court to-day by Mr. Justice Ostler. The property was assigned by List to the late Mr. Killiek. His Hojiour found that the option secured by List for the sale of the land was for himself alone, and accordingly his sale of the property at a profit was not a legal breach, nor was it unlawful. It had not been proved that List and Foster were the agents of Havill or of any other purchaser. There was therefore no proof that the sum assigned to the late Mr. Killiek was a secret commission. The defence also raised the point that the sum was irrevocable by List anil Foster because they were not registered land agents when they obtained the option, or when they induced Havell to purchase the land. They also raised the point that the assignee could acquire no better title. The sum assigned was. however, not, in fact, commission payable by Mrs. Holmes for services rendered to her by List and Foster as agents for the sale, although she was content to represent the matter thus to the late Mr. Killiek. The sum was, rather, profit on the resale of an option. Further, even if Ihe assigned sum had been payable ns commission, it was a solitary transaction, and not unlawful. His Honour also held that the defence, that the agreement was void because Kitlick did not disclose his registered name and description, had failed. In addition, the judgment maintained that, although cited as a defendant, Havill was no party to the assignment, and having paid'Mrs, Holmes all that he owed her, could not, by any principle of judgment, be held responsible. Mrs. Holmes had secured all her purchase money, including this £133/6/8, which she had represented to Killiek as a debt due by her to List and Foster. Judgment must accordingly be against her alone; she must rely on her indemnity for recovery from Havill. Although the documents might hryve been more lucid, they implied that Mrs. Holmes agreed that £133/6/8, less certain costs up to £5, with 5 per cent interest on that sum until paid, should go to List and Foster. This was the sum assigned to Killiek by contract, to which Mrs. Holmes was a party. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiffs against Mrs. Holmes lor £l2B GAS, together with simple interest at u per’ cent, from October 11. 1933, to the date of judgment, and costs.