SUBDIVISION CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18894, 17 December 1924, Page 14

SUBDIVISION CLAIM.

THE MERRILANDS ESTATE.

ACTION FOR COMMISSION.

FINANCES OF A COMPANY.

SECURITY FOR COSTS SOUGHT.

A case arising out of a land subdivision at the MerriUnds Estate was commenced in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Reed yesterday. Surfdale Estates, Ltd. (Mr- Anderson and Mr. Finlay) sued for a declaration that John Patcrson and James Taterson, commission agents, and Helen Paterson, spinster (Mr. Ostler and Mr. R. MeVcagh), were trustees for plaintiffs in respect of £2271 5s 3d and £450 13s, commission alleged to be due. Plaintiffs also a«ked that defendants -be ordered to furnish proper accounts of nil moneys collected by them from purchasers, «nd to pav these to plaintiffs. There was a further claim for £1500 general damages, being estimated profits plaintiffs would have made had thoy been allowed to cany out s cot-tract with defendants for the sale of the land. The statement of claim set out that plaintiffs -.ere owners of 140 acres, which defendants agreed to sell tor £55,004 to Milburn »nd RowlhngS for subdivision and sale. All moneys from the sale of the subdivision were to te paid into ,- trust account, and Milburn and Rowtlings appointed plaintiffs aj> sole agents for the subdivisoin on a 10 per cent, commission. Plaintiffs, who spent £400 on subdivision plans and survey and £1000 on advertising, fold sections to the value of £41.147 JOs, and had received £3989 purchase mowsy. On these sales plaintiffs w?re entitled to £4114 15s commission. Of that amount, £1177 17s 5d had been received. There was thu* owing by Milburn and Rowllings £290b 17s 7J. Sato Withdrawn Trom Plain/ifls.

The claim then referred to fresh agreements which bad been made when defendants etnploved plaintiffs to obtain from purchasers fresh contracts, giving these purchasers full credit for all money paid to Milburn and Rowllings. While plaintiffs v-cre rearranging the balance of these contracts defendants withdrew the sale of the land from plaintiffs, so that defendants had received the full benefit of all work done bv plaintiffs for Milburn afld Rowllings. Plaintiffs claimed balance of commission amounting to £2271. it was alleged that the withdrawal of the iiale of the land from plaintiffs was vrongful. For the defendants, Mr. Ostler made {m application for a. stay of proceedings, pending the granting of security for costs, and tor an adjournment on the ground that insufficient time had been allowed for preparation of the defence. In support of the application for security he read affidavits regarding the financial condition of ttui plaintiff company. , Conduct of Plaintiffs as Agents.

In reply to Hiss Honor, Mr. Ostler said it would be contended that plaintiffs had been paid more than they had earned. Their general conduct as agents and the fact, that they were being pressed by creditors, entitled defendants to assume that they were no longer tit to represent them. When His Honor saw what was the class* of the company, or the class of man who ran it, he would see that defendant* tntiiii succeed. Mr. Anderson replied that the affidavits, some of which should never have been filed, dealt with affairs six months ago. The companv was now in a thoroughly financial condition and bad satisfied some of the old creditors, should bo heard before the Christmas His Honor said he thought the case holidays. On the question of security for costs, he would look into the matter and announce his decision in the morning. As far as tho defence was concerned, all information could be obtained by tho following afternoon. "The case was accordingly adjourned till 2.15 to-day. '