City Land Agent Wins Court Action

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 54, 6 March 1935, Page 12

City Land Agent Wins Court Action

CLAIM FOR COMMISSION THAT WAS NOT PAID

At the Magistrate’s Court sitting in Palmerston North yesterday, beforo Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., Wood and Co., of Palmerston North, land agents, took action against J. Woodley, formerly of Young’s road, Papakura, and now of 40 Ferguson street, Palmerston North, a storekeeper, claiming £2O commission in respect of tlio sale of a property, or as a reasonable return for work dono. Mr. G. I. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff company and Mr. L. M. Abraham for defendant.

According to plaintiff’s claims, the company had, on written authority, acted as commission agent in the sale of tho Hihitahi store, the property of defendant, to Douglas Brophy. The amount of commission had been agreed upon between tho plaintiff company and defendant in the event of a sale. In the alternative, tho plaintiff company claimed £2O as being a reasonable remuneration for work done and time expended in tho sale of tho store. Evidence was given by Mrs. Wood that sho had been in attendance at tho ofllco of the plaintiff company when Mr. Brophy had called, making inquiries as to the store which had been advertised, as being for sale. Mr. Brophy had not known anything of Hihitahi or the store. It had been agreed by defendant that tho commission would he £2O and it was also agreed that tho property should not be placed in any other agent’s hands. It was on that understanding that advertising was undertaken. Defendant had later agreed that quite a fair amount of trouble and expense had been gone to by Mr. Wood, and had said ho would pay Mr. Wood for his out-of-pocket expenses. Defendant had also said he did not think Wood and Co. were entitled to the commission.

Arthur Wood, land agent, carrying on business as Wood and Co., described how defendant camo to his offico and said that no other agent would be given authority to sell tho store. Sorno time later, Mr. Brophy had given witness to understand that ho did not know where tho store was. Later it was discovered casually that Mr. Brophy had bought it. Defendant had said lie would pay tho commission to the person to whom it was due, but did not consider Wood and Co. should reccivo it.

Evidence For Defence. Arthur Edward Gardner, a commercial traveller, formerly for Barraud and Abraham, said the store had been in his firm’s hands for sale. At a week-end late in July ho had told Mr. Bropliy that the store was for salo arid how much was required for it. Giving evidence, defendant denied that he had told Wood and Co. they would bo the only agents having authority to sell the business, as it had been placed in tho hands of two others as well. Mr. Brophy told witness ho had received all his information about the store at Hihitahi from Mr. Gardner. Tho Magistrate commented that the dates as mentioned by Mr. Brophy did not bear out tho rest of tho evidence and it appeared that he had received his real introduction to tho store through Wood and Co., who were therefore entitled to tho money as they had told him definitely that the storo was for salo before he went to Gardner and completed the sale.

Judgment was entered for the amount claimed, with costs £3 liis.