AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1864, 28 May 1886, Page 3

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

A case of importance to commission agents was decided in the Wellington Magistrate’s court on Friday afternoon, •Tames Cooke claimed from Redwood Bros.’ the Marlborough runholdcrs, the sum of £1)0, balance of procuration fee I'm- alleged assistant-'! in negotiating a loan of £IO,OOO. Mr Howortli appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stafford for defendants. It appears that in February, 1885, the plaintiff offered to negotiate a loan of .L 10,090 for the defendants at 6 per cent., being l.j per cent, less interest than they were tuen paying, and the defendants agreed to pay plaintiff LIOO io the event of the negotiations being successful. The olaiiitiff applied to the Government Life Insurance Association for the sum required, but the Association declined to entertain the proposal ul less than Gj per cent., and the plaintiff was then allowed to retain LlO which he had borrowed from defendants. Subsequently it was agreed that the rate of interest should be GJj per cent., arid that the defendants should pay n valuation fee, which they afterwards did. Although the valuation was over L 20.000, the Association required a further valuation and a further fee of L 25, K'hi-h the defendants demurred to, and the matter remained in abeyance. Some time after the defendants, without commuuiuiting with the plaintiff, renewed their application for the loan, which was ultimately granted for the full sum al 6) per cent, without any further valuation being made or required. Evidence having been heard at great length to the above effect, Mr Stratton!, U, M., decided that the contract bef*x'cn the parties ceased when Cooke Hill'd t j obtain the money at 6 per cent,; Gut although the loan was eventually obtained without Cooke’s assistance, still he had originally suggested the means by which the defendants had effected a saving of 1 per cent., and in equity and good cjuseience he was fairly entitled to consideration. Judgment was given for Llo, in addition to the LlO previously reeeivfd by the plaintiff, wijh costs L2 llg. Mr Ho .vorlh intimated the plaintiff would probably appeal —-Post,}