LAND AGENTS’ COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9788, 11 October 1917, Page 10

LAND AGENTS’ COMMISSION

an interesting point. CASE BEFORE THE APPEAL COURT. The Court of Appeal yesterday heard argument in a matter reierreu miect from the Magistrates Court ot Palmerston NorUn under section 63 ot tne Adjudicature Act. 1903. It was in connpvction with. tiH> cas& ot Knyvete and Robert Pratt, .pontiffs (tppeUants) V. Robert L. Blasted, defenuant (respondent), the question a, issue involving a difficult f regarding oommisston on the sale ot la Qn' the Bench were the Chief Jusitioe (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Danniston, Mi Justice Cooper, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Hosting. Sir Joan Findlay. K.C., with him Mi D. B-’ Hoggard, appeared tor the appellants; Mr T. koung for tho defenaction in the Magistrate’s Court was heard before Mr J, W. Poynton, S.M., on December U>th, and was brought for the recovery of a balance of commission alleged to be due on an exchange of property. The facts elicited were as follow: —The appellants were licensed land agents. Tho respondent authorised the appellants in writing on September 12th, 1916, to sell or exchange his property of 126 acres at Hiwinui. In pursuance of such authority the appellants effected an exchange of the equity of redemption of the respondent’s property (which Was subsequently completed) upon the terms of an agreement dated September 12th, 1916, between tho respondent and Thomas Roulston. Tho respondent paid to the appeßants 2i per cent, on the sum of .£2612 16s 6d, namely, -£6o 6s 6d, before the action brought, such sum ot £2613 fe 6d representing tho respond dent’s equity in the land. It was admitted that it was known to the appellants that the respondent was from the ,commencement only disposing or his equity of redemption. No evidence as to any custom was given or offered. On January 33rd, 1917. the judgment of the Court was delivered as follows: “In this case the plaintiffs, who are licensed land agents, sue the defendant for a balance of commission on an exchange of defendant’s property. On the property there were two mortgages. These were fully disclosed with the instructions to sell or exchange, and throughout the transactions were allowed for. The question to be decided is this: Is commission payable on the total value of tho property, or on its value above tho mortgages? It is contended by tho plaintiffs that if commission can be claimed only on the surplus above incumbrances, an agent may have little or nothing to get on the sale of a property heavily mortgaged. On the other hand defendant points out that in such a case the seller, if ho has to pay commission on tlm total value, without taking the mortgages into consideration, may have *o pay to the agent as commission more than he receives for his interest. ’ The Court reserved judgment.