LAND DEAL CASE.

Manawatu Times, Volume LXV, Issue 1902, 23 April 1913, Page 5

LAND DEAL CASE.

A PROPERTY ADVERTISED IN MANAWATU TIMES. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. J. A. Nash and Co. (Mr Oakley) ▼. Isabella Woolvern and Mr Wvern (Mr Jacobs), claim £<*< 10s tor commission in connection with a property exchange. . J A. Nash, one of the plaintiffs stated that a property was submitted to him for sale or exchange by Mr Nicholson, of Manakau. The property was advertised, and defendant called in answer to the advertisement. He said he had properties at Feilding, Dannevirke and Levin, and he would be prepared to exchange either one of them. He said the property was in his wife s name, but whatever he did in regard to sale or exchange would be agreed to by his wife. Defendant was verv anxious to inspect Nicholson s property. Plaintiff went with him to Manakau, and they had a look over the farm together. Defendant intimated that he was satisfied with the place, and arranged for Mr Nicholson to inspect his property at Dannevirke. It was then agreed to exchange the farms. Plaintiff rendered the account for £l7 10s commission on the transaction, and received no acknowledgment. He subsequently applied to Mrs Woolvern for payment, and received a reply to the effect that she would acknowledge no liability in the matter, as she had not given the property to plaintiff for sale. On the other hand, she had placed it in her husband's hands for sale. Plaintiff then went on to state that he felt he was being had, and instituted the present proceedings. The rate of commission charged was 2% per cent. Woolvern was very pleased with the deal, and sold the Manakau property again witnin a week. David Lovelock, of J. A. Nash and Co., deposed having made the final arrangements in connectiop with the deal, and stated that defendant before the agreement was signed agreed to pay 2% per cent, commission. Witness was under the impression that he was acting for Mrs Woolvern. J. Nicholson supplied particulars regarding the financial arrangements which led up to the closing of the deal. Woolvern had told witness in conversation that he had offered per cent., and plaintiffs were not prepared to accept it. Mr Jacobs, for the defence, would not admit any agency in a matter, and accordingly applied for a nonsuit. Mr Oakley contended there was an agency, which was proved by the part of Woolvern allowing the agreement to proceed. The Magistrate then elected to hear the defendant. W. Woolvern said he saw the advertisement in the MANAWATU DAILY TIMES (same produced). He called on Nash and Co., and offered his property on behalf of his wife in payment for the farm. When he saw Nash and Co. he was acting for himself as his wife's agent, and there was no necessity for Naßh and Co. to go to Dannevirke. The only way he could get in touch with his elient was to interview Nash and Co., but be certainly never appointed them his agents. When the agreement was being drawn up Nicholson asked Lovelock what commission he was going to charge, to which Lovelock replied, "The usual commission." Defendant personally never said a word about commission, nor did he think he would be called upon to pay. He had endeavoured since on behalf of his wife to settle this matter out of Court as he did not like to go into litigation. The Magistrate held that the plaintiffs to succeed must prove an agreement to pay commission. There was no express or implied agreement in this instance. It was not until after the deal was closed that commission was mentioned. He felt sure that the defendant was therefore under no legal liability to pay commission. Judgment would be 4»iv.n for defendant with costs £4 8s id.