AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 15748, 13 February 1922, Page 9

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF STOCK.

(Per Press Association.! WANGANUI, hist night

A ease of very groat interest to stool" agency linns and farmers occupied three days of the Supreme Cm,it. W.. A. Darcy sought to recover I>o2 from Palgety and Co:, and .1. >S. Powell, butcher of Westport, on accomi. of Ihe uncompleted sale of stock. A non-suit was granted in the ease of Powell. Darcy sold 97 bu 1 locks to Powell Through Dalgety’s on August IS, bn) Powell did not, pay hv the required time, arm the stock w av sent back to the farm. In October plaintiff sold the stock at a loss of J.ss<i, having in the interim been put to the expense of grading the cattle.

It was contended for plaintiff that Dalgcfyks were a well-known firm of great reputation carrying on business, and that when a farmer sold stock through a stock firm the farmer looked to the stock agent to pay the money, and did not look to the actual purchaser for payment, as often the Lit - tor’s financial stringency resources were unknow n to'the vendor.

Plaintiff; called lengthy evidence to show that that was the universal custom in business. It was further contended that Dulgcty’s should have made every inquiry in regard to tho financial stability of the purchaser of the stock, and notified the vendor. Tho issues put to the jury were: (1) Was f here a recognised usage amongst stock agents and farmers in the Wanganui district at the time the contract was made, under which a stock agent undAlook in till cases I<> pay to the vendor the price of the stock sold through the agency of such s f .ick agents, whether or not tho stock, the subject of the sale, had boon delivered to the vendor?

(2) When a drover took the caHlc from the farm did Dalgety's approve of Lis act as delivery to the purchaser?

(3p Was (here a recognised irnge amongst stock agents and runners in such district under which a stock agent owed a duty to vendors before introducing the proposed purchaser ?<> the principal, fo make sufficient enquiries as to the financial ability of proposed purchaser to complete the proposed sale, and before the making of the contract to communicate the information acquired us it. result of such enquiries to his principal? Mr. iSkerrott, for Dalgcty and Co., argued that its there was no precedent to this case there was not it usage or recognised custom which placed such liability on the stock agent, contending that the evidence of farmers was only their opinion. This case, lie argued, was cash on delivery. In the event of credit being given the agency was liable. Thero had been no deliver. Powell because the stock would then have been in "Powell’s possession, whereas Dalgcty’s were determined there should be no delivery until the cash wits paid. Air. Rlicrrett contend ed that issue (3) wits inconsistent with the rest of plaintiff’s case, which said that a farmer was not concerned its to the buyer.

Mr. Neavc, for Darcy, contended that ample evidence had been adduced f o show what was in the minds of the farming community. Even one witness for Dnlgetyns, a stock agent from Palmerston North, said lie believed until recently that stock agencies undertook the liability its now alleged. No claim had ever been inado before because of the rising market. Counsel commented on the amount, of correspondence between Dalgcty and Powell, and also referred to a recent alteration in the form of sale note, which now said the vendor could not look to the agent if the purchaser failed. The jury on Saturday night, returned the answer “Yes” to all issues.

Application is to be made by Dalgcty and <l’o. for a re-hearing, if a lion-suit point already raised fails.