Largest Circulation of any Journal dealing with the Landed Interests. Price 3d. THE " LAND, HOU8 Offices : Published Ann This paper of Auctioneers pages contain s fession such ; Surveyors' Feet To those ir Gazette will be 1 principal Hotel Kingdom. It Sales, announce and, indeed, f publicity. An importr and the KESULT Real Estate w) Treaty, Historic UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY TIE," TERE8T8. idon. D ENCE. e- 3 patronage ents. It? to the pro- 7 question?, the Estates at all the Dins in the sements of to be Let ; ich require MING SALES >culators in i by Private , , Jgal Topics, Notes by the Way, Personal Paragraphs, Agricultural Notes, Legal Proceedings, and Provincial Property Sales are the headings of some of the principal subjects. Solicitors and Land and Property Owners extensively support the Estates Gazette, and it is recognised by them as an authority on the state of the Property Market. Numbering as it does amongst its subscribers many of the most influential persons interested in Land and House Property, the Estates Gazette offers advantages not afforded by any other Journal for making public all matters con- nected with the landed interest. PUBLISHED ANNUALLY EARLY IN NOVEMBER. Demy 8vo. Half-bound in Calf, 8s.; Net, 6s. In Cloth. 5s. Post Free. (Cash must be sent with Order, and Net Prices are only to be obtained direct from the Office.) fl FOE THE USE OF Surveyors, Auctioneers, Land and Estate Agents, Containing a List of the principal Auctioneers, Land and Estate Agents in London and the Country ; the names and addresses of the Members of the Surveyors' Institution, the Auctioneers' Institute, and Institute of Estate anu House Agents ; the Text of the Acts affecting Agriculture and Property passed last Session ; an Index to numerous Disputed Claims for Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Commission on the Selling or Letting of Property ; a List of Provincial Hotels where Sales usually take place ; the names of the principal Bill Posters in the Provinces ; a Summary of the Claims for Unexhausted Improvements since the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act ; the Customs of the Country as between Incoming and Outgoing Tenants ; a large number of useful Tables for Land Agents and Auctioneers ; the Scales of Professional Charges adopted by the leading firms ; a List of the County Surveyors; various Forms, &c., and a mass of useful information important to Surveyors, Land Agents Auctioneers, Valuers and House Agents ; together with A DIARY of ONE PAGE for EACH DAY With or without Columns foi Cash. Published by FRANK P. WILSON, at the ESTATES GAZETTE Offi ce 6, St. Bride Street, Fleet Street, London, E.G. A COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES: A COLLECTION OF CASES ON THE LAW RELATING TO AUCTIONEERS' AND ESTATE AGENTS' COMMISSION. BY G. ST. LEGEE DANIELS, LL.B. (Loud.), And of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. SECOND EDITION. (REVISED AND GREATLY ENLARGED.) FRANK P. WILSON, ESTATES GAZETTE " OFFICE, 12, ST. BRIDE ST., LONDON, E.G. J893, LONDON : PRINTED BY THK " ESTATES GAZETTE," LIMITED, 12, ST. BRIDE STREET, E.C. T PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. AN endeavour has been made to render this volume a handbook of the law as to Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Commission, the object being to give members of those professions an opportunity of finding at a glance a modern precedent for any dispute on the subject in which they may become involved; in fact, to enable them to act in ordinary cases as their own lawyers, whilst remembering that in serious complications time, trouble and expense is generally saved by consulting a Solicitor. A brief and business-like resume of the cases has been aimed at, one comprehensible to the lay mind, and at the same time, it is hoped, not altogether without use to lawyers. There as been no unnecessary multiplication of the authorities. Care has been bestowed on the index, and in the appendix will be found a few cases which are not of sufficiently recent date to be within the scope of the Compendium, but which it has been thought advisable to add on account of their general importance. G. ST. L. D. Temple, August, 1889. 778843 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. THE present edition has been brought down to July, 1898, and in compliance with the views of many readers, the dates and references to more detailed reports have been added to all the cases. In noting this alteration it is, however, deemed advisable to remind laymen that nixi pritis and county court cases are not regarded as authorities in courts of law. The chief object of the Compendium of which the reception has been most satis- factory, is to furnish a guide to Auctioneers and Estate Agents, though it is hoped that lawyers also may not find it altogether without use. There are few disputes as to commission of which examples do not appear in the volume. G. ST. L. D. Temple, October, 1898. LIST OF CASES. Addison v. Miles . . Agate v. Butcher . . Agate v. Walker Ancrum v. Catleugh Andrade v. Toleman Ashton v. Bailey . . Bacon v. Fielding . . Bailey v. Purdue . . Baker v. Taylor Barker v. Fermoy . . Barnett v. Brown . . Barnett v. Isaacson Bayley v. Chadwick Beal v. Biddulph Beale v. Higgs Bean v. Heath Belton v. Burrows . . Beningfield v. Lady Brooke 269 Beningfield v. Kynaston Beard v. Shephard. . Bland v. Lansdown Bott v. Hartley Bray v. Dalgleish . . Bremner v. Short . . Brightwell v. Parry Brodie v. Beach Brodie v. Williams . . Brown v. St. George's House Company . . PAGE PAGE . 249 Biunt v. Mellor 228 . 56 Bull v. Hebden 169 . 61 Burton v. Hughes . . 87 . 53 Butcher r. Breem . . 83 . 190 Cave v. Holmes 89 . 131 Cave v. Moon 218 . 56 Chesterton v. Ackers 223 . 293 Chilman v. Bowbotham . 162 . 190 Clark v. Deuchar . . 215 . 59 Clark v. Haines 134 . 212 Clark v. Sandys 243 . 78 Clark v. Smythies . . 306 5 Coates v. Fry 256 . 17 Collins v. Furneaux 225 . 3 Collins v. Hagge 183 . 88 Copping v. White . . 145 . 38 Crocker v. Wilson . . 147 e 269 Daggatt v. Batcliffe 102 . 20 Daniels v. Bailey . . 173 . 158 Day v. Bate 37 . 221 Day v. Harris 70 . 99 Davis v. Dent 129 . 52 Davis v. Mona Hotel 266 . 191 Davy v. Thompson . . 272 . 131 Dawe v. Bennett 217 . 202 Debenham v. Clark 12 . 282 De Jersey v. Mobbs 42 e Dew v. Trehearne . . 8 . 124 Drew v. Williams . . 245 LIST OF CASES. PAGE Driver v. Lord Camden's Trustees 21 Duckworth v. Prickett . . 292 Dunn v. Arnold . . ..11 Durant v. Steel . . . . 62 Eiloart v. Kingston . . 196 Eiloart v. Robinson . . 31 Emanuel v. Cooke . . . . 125 Esam v. Carter . . . . 192 Evans v. Hill . . . . 119 Evans v. Clarke . . . . 204 Everill v. Walker . . . . 279 Eversfield v. Spence . . 4 Farebrother v. Cox . . .18 Fisher v. Drewett . . . 311 Fredericks v. Floyd . 239 Fuller v. Ball . . .33 Gage v. Searle . . .9 Gallinger v. Wilkinson . 166 Gearns v. Lake . . .54 Giddy v. Ayerst . . .28 Giddy v. Dawe . . . . 275 Giddy v. Harper . . . . 73 Giddy v. Pink . . . . 109 Giddy v. Ross . . .270 Giles v. Schollick . . .265 Giles v. White .. .227 Gill v. Burbidge . . .153 Gillow v. Lord Aberdare . 284 Golberg v. Westlake . 280 Goodeve v. Coxson . . . 176 Gray v. Hayward . . . 206 Green v. Bartlett ... .305 Green v. Stiles . . .209 Greigg v. Melnotte . . . 288 Griffin v. Cheesewright . 45 Grogan v. Smith . . . 205 Haltridge v. Tunbridge Wells Benefit Building Society 187 Harman v. Nowell . . . . 155 Harris v. Luckes . . . . 156 Harrison v. King . . . . 296 Harrison v. Tyers . . . . 294 Hartley v. Smith . . . . 74 Head v. De Lapiletiere . . 12 Hellier v. Barnett . . . . 7 Helmore v. Buschman . . 94 Herring v. Lane . . . . 193 Hockley v. Foot . . . . 96 FAQE Homer v. Rugg . . . . 184 Hope v. Nelson . . . . 199 Horncastle v. Pigot . . 208 Home v. Eberle . . . . 90 Hough ton v. Orgar . . . . 40 Houghton v. Scott . . . . 50 Hurrell v. Sims . . . . 64 Inman v. Warr . . . . 66 Isaac v. Fraser . . . . 200 Izard v. Baseley . . . . 135 Jackson v. Bucks District Supply Company . . 278 Jay v. Noble . . . . 13 Joliffe v. Ray . . . . 69 Jolly v. Carter . . . . 35 Jolly v. Garrett . . . . 98 Jolly v. Sharp . . . . 67 Joyce v. Jones . . . . 302 Kay v. Allen . . . . 203 King v. Woodhouse . . 10 Kingwell v. Garden . . 262 Kirk v. Evans . . . . 163 Langburn v. Robinson . . 261 Laiigley v. Rossell . . . . 29 Lawrence v. Hudsen . . 41 Lewis v. Harper . . . . 97 Liell v. Boulter . . . . 283 Lofts v. Pease . . . . 214 Lumley v. Beksteiu . . 142 Lumley v. Nicholson . . 47 Lycett v. Kent 104 Major v. Tarrant . . . . 250 Mansell v. Clements . . 312 Marler v. Roberts . . . . 246 Marshall v. Andrews . . 287 Martin v. Burn . . . . 1 Martin v. Knight . . . . 174 Mason v. Dixie . . . . 232 Mason v. Lindsay . . . . 11 Melhuish v. Horncastle . . 263 Millar v. Toulmin . . . . 110 Minahan v. Stoneham . . 238 M'Leod v. Artola . . . . 171 Monk v. Bartram . . . . 230 Moore v. Solomon . . . . 153 Morris v. Marsden . . . . 16 Motion v. Griffin . . . . 22 Nicholas v. Watkins . . 235 Nightingale v. Huckle . . 267 Noble v. Tipping . . . . 159 LIST OF CASES. vil PAGE PAGE Nokes v. Jones .. 118 Sovereign Life Assurance Oetzmann v. Emmott 32 Company (In re) 254 Parkinson v. Howell . . 14 Steere v. Smith 46 Parr v. Headdey . . 198 Stokes v. Nash 237 Peacock v. Freeman .. 75 Stutely v. Weller 139 Pells v. Smith .. 117 Suett v. Dillon 242 Perrott v. Eeynolds .. 210 Tanner v. Green 251 Pierce v. Aldridge . . .. 276 Taplin v. Barrett 165 Piggott v. Turner . . .. 6 Tarr v. Dickins 186 Pinchbeck v. Wootton .. 58 Taylor v. Lauzun 68 Platt v. Depree .. 290 Theobalds v. Meakin 244 Pothonier v. Seckham .. 84 Theobalds v. Salaman 149 Pountney v. Pox . . .. 51 Thompson v. Hammond . . 137 Powell v. Schlesinger .. 44 Thompson v. Wyatt 63 Prebble v. Tufnell . . .. 136 Thrower v. Atkins 126 Price v. Lovegrove . . .. 247 Titherley v. Richards 105 Prickett v. Badger . . .. 308 Tower v. Burton 222 Pritchard v. Reynolds .. 260 Towers v. Carfield 241 Proctor v. Morris . . .. 15 Trollope v. Hamilton 193 Ralph v. Inkpen .. 43 Tyser v. Kornatski 2 Reeves v. Withers . . .. 36 Tucker v. Savage 253 Richards v. Branscome .. 180 Walton v. Lucas 25 Richards r. Game . . .. 189 Walton v. Smirke 127 Richards v. Hudson .. 220 Wansborough v. Lewis 121 Richards v. Warren .. 181 Waterer v. Horrell.. 128 Richell v. Selous . . .. 86 Webster v. Wright 179 Robbins v. Lewer . . .. 274 Wharton v. Smith 144 Robins v. Humphreys .. 300 White v. Bainton 284 Robins v. M'Kay . . .. 224 White v. Lucas 27 Rogers v. Hampden .. 64 White v. Perry 268 Rogers v. Waterer ; . .. 151 Wickenden v. Fowler 23 Rowbotham v. Prince 4 Willats v. Parsons 82 Rutter v. Downes . . .. 240 Wilkins v. Boxall 65 Sadler v. Edwards . . .. 175 Wilson v. Danes 9 Satchwell v. Samuel .. 93 Woods v. Burchett 177 Saunders v. Taylor . . .. 301 Woodward v. Shepherd . . 231 Sheldrake v. Rymill .. 34 Wright v. Hales 71 Shut-man v. Parsons .. 85 Wright v. Jarrett 108 Shurman v. Parsons (2) .. 95 Wright v. Wiltshire 123 Southey v. Holloway .. 195 Wrightson v. Overton 81 COMPENDIUM COMMISSION CASES. Martin v. Burn. Liverpool Assizes, 8 February, 1879. Before Lord Justice Thesiger and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 104. Alleged introduction of purchaser Sale not really effected thereby. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a land and estate agent, to recover a sum for commission alleged to be due to him from the defendant in consequence of his introducing a purchaser for certain property in Harrington Street, Liverpool. The plaintiff's case was that in June, 1878, he became aware that a Mr. Banner was likely to be a buyer of premises in Harrington Street, and saw him on the subject, and afterwards, saw the defendant and stated that he thought he had a client who would purchase the property in question on reasonable terms. Mr. Banner's name was mentioned and Mr. Burn handed the plaintiff particulars of the property, an agreement as to commission in case of a sale being entered into. Mr. Banner, through the plaintiff, then offered 9,000 for the property, which was rejected by the defendant, who subsequently sold direct to Mr. Banner for 11,000. On behalf of the plaintiff it was urged, on the authority of Green v. Bartlett, 2 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. that the plaintiff had been the effectual cause of the sale ; in other words, that he had really brought about the relation of buyer and seller between the parties. The defendant's case, however, was that when he, being also a land agent, had purchased other adjacent property with a view of making alterations in it and re-selling, and in the course of the alterations Mr. Banner had complained of and threatened proceedings about an interference with the lights of his property, a purchase by Mr. Banner of the defendant's premises at a fair price was suggested by the solicitors engaged as the best way of settling the difficulty. This was done, and it was contended that the property was not on sale in the ordinary sense of the phrase, and that the plaintiff had not been instrumental in bringing about the transaction. The plaintiff, by his counsel, admitted that upon these facts he could not recover, and a juror was withdrawn. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Aspinall, Q.C., and Mr. Mulholland ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton. Tyser and another v. Kornatski. Ouildhall, 24 March, 1879. Before Baron Huddleston and a Common Jury. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 183. Employment of more than one agent Oral evidence of claim. The defendant was sued by the plaintiffs, a firm of auctioneers and estate agents in Fenchurch Street, for commission on the sale of a house at Catford. His answer to the claim was that the plaintiffs had not found the purchaser, who had, in fact, been put forward by another house agent, in whose hands Mr. Kornatski had placed the house some months before communicating with the plaintiffs, and to whom he had already paid commission. The defendant paid a certain sum into Court, but, with regard to the balance of the claim, his account (in the absence of a written agreement) of the conversation as to commission which he had had with the plaintiff, differed COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 3 substantially from that given by the latter, and in the result the jury returned a verdict in his favour. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Douglas Kingsford and Mr. Edwards ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Finlay. Beale v. Higgs. Kidderminster County Court, 14 May, 1879. Before His Honour Judge Rupert Kettle. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 232. Property put up to auction but not sold Subsequent sale by owner to party present at auction. The plaintiff was an auctioneer of Commercial Buildings, and the defendant a builder of Lea Street, Wolverhampton. The claim was for 26 5s. Id., the expenses and commis- sion in connection with the sale of some property which the plaintiff had offered at auction on the instructions of the defendant. In respect of expenses, 5 was paid into Court by the defendant, and with regard to the balance, 21 5s. Od. for commission at 2 per cent., the plaintiff's case was that the property had been offered for sale by auction, and, the highest bid in the room only reaching 830, it was bought in, the reserve being at first 900, which was afterwards reduced to 890. On the following day, Mr. Beale had an offer of 840, and saw the defend- ant upon the subject, who said that he would not accept less than 890. Eventually, however, he sold the property himself for 850 to one of the persons who was in the room at the time of the sale and who actually bid for the property. The learned judge who tried the case decided that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a com- mission, but not at the rate of 2^ per cent. ; 1^- per cent, ^as all he could recover, and he entered judgment for him 'on those terms. Mr. Corbet appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Tree for the defendant. B2 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Eversfield v. Spence. Common Pleas Division, 12 May, 1879. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Denman. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 280. Quantum Meruit Commission not earned under agreement, but ex- penses allowed for work actually done. In this case, the defendanc, being desirous of obtaining 5,000 by the sale of some land at \Villesden, employed the plaintiff, a house and estate agent, to find a purchaser on the terms that if he succeeded he was to receive 600. The plaintiff accordingly entered upon the business and found a purchaser, but in the meantime the defendant had himself disposed of the estate by private contract. The plaintiff admitted that he knew other agents had been employed besides himself, but it was urged on his behalf that he had actually incurred expenses in procuring a purchaser, for which he was entitled to be reimbursed, as the defendant had not taken the trouble to give him notice that his services were no longer required. The jury found that this conduct on the part of the defendant was unreasonable and awarded the plaintiff 30 damages, which verdict was confirmed by the Common Pleas Division, Lord Coleridgt- stating that real work had been done by the plaintiff under the agreement, and that it would have been easy for the defendant to have sent a circular to the different agents, informing them that he had found a purchaser. Mr. Marshall Griffith, Q.C., and Mr. Hotighton appeared for the defendant in the Common Pleas Division. Rowbotham and another v. Prince. Horsham County Court, 19 August, 1879. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 439. Commission earned by indirect introduction "Chain" complete-- Two agents paid commission. The plaintiffs, who were auctioneers and licensed brokers at Guildford, sued the defendant to recover the sum of 9, commission on the sale of the goodwill, &c., of his house, COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. O the Market Inn, at Rudgwick. They had, upon instruc- tions, advertised the business in the usual way, and introduced several persons to look at the premises without success, and they then communicated with a Mr. Bluett, an auctioneer in London, asking him if he could find a customer. Mr. Bluett sent down a person named Sawyer, whose offer of 180 was accepted, Bluett, without the knowledge or sanction of the plaintiffs, being employed by the defendan t to represent him in the transfer. The defence raised was that the customer had really been introduced by Bluett, to whom the defendant had paid a commission, but the learned judge held that the facts demonstrated that the plaintiffs had indirectly introduced the customer. If they had not spoken to Bluett about the matter he would not have known anything about the business, and could not have put forward Sawyer. The chain was complete, and the fact that the defendant had already paid commission to one agent made no difference if he was equitably liable to another. The defendant must pay for the luxury of employing two auctioneers. Judgment for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed with costs. Mr. Durbridge appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Bostock for the defendant. Bayley and others v. Chadwick. House of Lords, 7 Nov., 1878. Before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne, Lord O'Hagan, and Lord Penzance. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxii., p. 24. Indirect introduction A chain of agency Property introduced by auctioneers to A.B., who introduces it to C.D. The defendant was the official liquidator of the Bessemer Saloon Steamship Company, and was sued by the plain- tiffs, who were ship auctioneers in Cowper's Court, Cornhill, for 200, being a commission of 1 per cent, upon the sale of the Bessemer for 20,000. An agreement as to the sale of this ship by the plaintiffs having been made, it was put up to auction, when no bid was made and the plaintiffs only became entitled to their 6 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. auction fee of 10 guineas. But a further clause in the agreement provided that in case any subsequent sale should be effected to any person or firm introduced by the plaintiffs,, or led to make an offer by their mention or publication of the matter for auction purposes, then the plaintiffs should become entitled to their commission of 1 pet cent. The plaintiffs received their 10 guineas, and some time after- wards received a communication from Mr. Pearson, of Hull,, who stated that he had met Mr. Sugden, of Leeds, and Mr. Gilbert, his agent, and that Mr. Sugden might perhaps go as far as 30,000 for the ship. However, an offer of 20.000 only was made, which was about to be acted upon when the plaintiffs were informed that another disposition of the vessel had been made. This referred to the fact that it had been sold to a Mr. Wilson for 20,000, but it turned out that that gentleman really bought for Mr. Sugden, so that the plaintiffs' right to commission was not interfered with. The substantial defence was that Mr. Sugden had not been led to purchase in consequence of " any mention or publication of the matter for auction purposes " by the plaintiffs, but the jury found that he had, and gave a verdict in his favour for the full amount of hi& claim. The case was taken to the House of Lords where the verdict was confirmed. The Lord Chancellor observed that originally Pearson had been in communication with the plaintiffs, and although he might not at first have been the agent of Sugden, he nevertheless became so in the course of the negotiations, and the terms of the written contract had been fulfilled. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Murphy, Q.C , Mr, Edwyn Jones and Mr. A. E. Nelson; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Herschell. Q.C., and Mr. Reed. Piggott v. Turner. Guildhall, 14 May, 1880. Before Mr. Justice Stephen and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiii., p. 214. Commission paid to two auctioneers Agent to sell and agent to let. The defendant in thie case had been anxious to let or sell a property known as The Lodge, Teddington, and had COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 7 put himself in communication with the plaintiff, an auctioneer and house agent at Kichmond. A Mr. Morris,, who wished to rent a house on the Thames for the summer, called upon the plaintiff's London agent, who gave him particulars of The Lodge as being to let furnished. Upon going to Teddington, Mr. Morris found the house was to be sold, the agents for that purpose being Messrs. Lumley and Co., the result being that he bought it for 5,000 from that firm, who duly deducted their commission from that amount. The plaintiff, conceiving that he was entitled to commission as having been practically instrumental in introducing the property to Mr. Morris, sued for his com- mission also, but the defence raised was that, although he had been retained to let the house furnished, it had been withdrawn from his hands and placed in those of Messrs. Lumley for sale. In the course ot summing up, Mr, Justice Stephen said that if the defendant had not been sufficiently explicit with the plaintiff, that was not the fault of the latter, whose agent had certainly heard of the purchaser before Messrs. Lumley, and in the result the jury found for the plaintiff for 170. Hellier v. Barnett. Wolverhampton County Court, 12 April, 1880. Before his Honour Judge Griffith. Reported ESTATES GAZETTK, Vol. xxiii., p. 246. Purchase incomplete There must be a sale or a binding agreement for a sale before commission can be claimed. Mr. Hellier, an estate agent, sought to recover the sum of 20 from the defendant, a money lender in Wolver- hampton, for commission alleged to be due for obtaining a purchaser for nine houses in Brick-kiln Street. The facts were that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to obtain him a purchaser, and said he wanted about 850 for the property. The plaintiff stated that if he obtained a pur- chaser he should expect a commission of 2^ per cent., and subsequently introduced a gentleman who expressed his willingness to buy the property. The defendant asked for a deposit of 100, and for the purchaser to sign an agree- ment there and then, but the latter wished to go to his 8 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. solicitor. The defendant declined to take this trouble, and the purchaser went to see his solicitor alone. Mean- while the defendant told the plaintiff that he should want another 10 for the property, as he had commenced making some repaiis. The plaintiff thereupon told the defendant that the purchaser would have nothing more to do with the matter, and the negotiations were broken off. In cross-examination, the plaintiff was asked whether any written contract had been entered into between himself on behalf of the defendant and the intended purchaser, as was necessary in the case of an agreement with regard to the sale of real property under the provisions of section 4 of of the Statute of Frauds, and as he replied in the negative, the learned judge directed him to be non-suited. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. E. T. Cresswell ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Plumptree. Dew v. Trehearne. Carnarvon Assizes, 10 July, 1880. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiii., p. 391. Advertising and issuing circulars with respect to property Bringing parties together. Mr. William Dew, an auctioneer, of Bangor, had received a letter from the defendant, Major Trehearne, requesting him to find a purchaser for Oakwood Lodge, Bettws-y-coed. Mr. Dew accordingly inspected the property, which he valued at 3,500, and it was advertised and descriptive circulars of it forwarded to (amongst others) the Royal Oak Hotel, Bettws-y-coed, where it was brought to the attention of Lady Alice Ewing. The result was that her ladyship put herself into communication with Mr. Dew, through Colonel West, Lord Penrhyn's agent, and particulars of the property were forwarded to her, She had inspected the property during her stay at Bettws-y-coed, and Major Tre- hearne ultimately arranged to sell to her for 3,200. The plaintiff's case was supported by Lady Alice Ewing and Colonel West, but for the defence it was contended that he had not brought the parties together in any shape or way The jury, however, returned a verdict in his favour fo COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 9 66, being the amount of the commission claimed, think- ing that the purchaser had first had notice of the property through the information furnished at the Royal Oak Hotel. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Q.C., and Mr. Marshall ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Sweetenham, Q.C., and Mr. Higgins. Wilson v. Danes. Westminster County Court, 8 Oct., 1880. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiii., p. 536. Letting a house Owner justified in accepting highest rent. This was an action by an auctioneer to recover 13 13s., for commission on letting a house in Hyde Park-place. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had received instructions to let the house in question at a rent of 250 a year, but when he found a client who was willing to take it, he was informed that it had been let to another tenant at a rent of 315 a year. He therefore claimed his com- mission ; but the learned judge decided against him with costs, holding that the defendant was justified in accepting the highest offer, and as that offer had not come through the plaintiffs agency, he could not be entitled to any commission, Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Harmsworth. Gage and Gay v. Searle. Bristol County Court, 14 January, 1881. Before His Honour Judge Metcalfe. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiv., p. 40. Notice at head of auctioneers' list Customers bound Presumption that list has been read. This action was brought to recover the sum of 6 for -commission on the sale of a business. The plaintiffs were public house brokers, and it appeared that the defendant went to them and asked them what businesses they had 10 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASKS. for sale, and they gave him a list, at the head of which were some printed conditions, in which it was set forth that the commission on the purchase or sale of a business was 5 per cent, on the first 100 of the purchase-money. The defendant afterwards took one of the businesses, there- by, according to the plaintiffs, rendering himself liable to pay them a commission, but it was argued on his behalf that all the plaintiffs had done was to hand him a list of businesses which they had for sale, and that he could not be bound by any printed conditions upon the list unless they were specially drawn to his attention at the time. The house in question had been withdrawn from the plaintiffs' hands before the defendant had purchased it. The learned judge, however, said that house agents, often losing their commission, took care to have the conditions upon which they undertook to let or procure houses for customers printed on their lists, arid a person who took a document with a notice of that kind upon it from an agent was bound by it, whether he read it or not. In contemplation of law he must be presumed to have read it. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiffs. Mr. Nichols appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Benson for the defendant. King v. Woodhouse. Westminster County Court, 10 December, 1880. Before His Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiv., p. 56. Commission paid twice The introducer of the purchaser entitled as well as the firm absolutely selling. The plaintiff here sued to recover the sum of 13 5s., being commission alleged to be due on the sale of a yacht. The defendant had instructed the plaintiff to find a pur- chaser, and the latter had given particulars as to price, tonnage, &c., to a Mr. M'Donald, who ultimately bought through Messrs. Cox and King, another firm of yacht agents, though he admitted that he had received the first intimation and particulars from the plaintiff. The evi- dence given was of a somewhat conflicting character, but COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 11 in the result the learned judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the first person instructed and the first to introduce the yacht to the purchaser, although he did not transact the business on the actual sale. He therefore gave judgment in his favour with costs, observing that although the vendor had paid one commission he was not thereby released from paying the plaintiff' what he was bonn r'ulc entitled to. Mason and Son v. Lindsay. Guildhall, 15 December, 1880. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiv., p. 56. Sale abortive owing to defect in title Agent entitled to commission. In this case the defendant, being anxious to sell a free- hold brewery at Hornsey, informed the plaintiffs, who were brewery valuers, in King William Street, City, that the price was 6,000. They alleged that they had found a purchaser, but the purchase could not be completed owing to some defect in the title. It appeared that as the property itself, and not the brewery business, formed the chief ingredient in the value, the plaintiffs had agreed to accept 1 instead of the usual 2 per cent., which would be the commission payable on the sale of leasehold property used for brewing. The defence was that until the purchase had been completed and the whole of the purchase-money paid, the plaintiffs were to have nothing more than their expenses out of pocket. On the first hearing of the action the jury found that the plaintiffs were only entitled to the sum of 10 10s., as a quantum meruit for their services ; but on the second trial a verdict was given in their favour for 99, the full amount of their claim, and Lord Coleridge added that if the matter had been in his discretion, he should have given them all the costs in both trials. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Cohen, Q.C., and Mr. J. C. Mathew ; for the defendant : Mr. Talfourd Salter, Q.C., and Mr. Darling. 12 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Head v. De Lapiletiere. Worthing County Court. 25 January, 1881. Reported KSTATKS GAZETTE, Vol. XXW., p. 71. Breach of faith by auctioneer Treating in person after lutrmlucing a client. This was an action brought by Mr. George Head, an auctioneer and house agent, against M. de Lapiletiere, a gentleman residing at Worthing, to recover the sum of 22 10s. commission upon the sale of a house. The plain- tiff had been instructed that the lowest price for which the house was to be sold was 900. He advertised the pro- perty in a local paper and on one occasion took a Mr. Goodall, a builder, over the premises and sent him to the owner, when he agreed to buy, and paid a deposit. Mean- while, however, it appeared that the plaintiff himself had conceived a desire to buy, and wrote a letter to the owner offering to find the money within three months, and also communicated with Goodall telling him not to take any further trouble about the matter. The defence to the action was that under the circumstances Head had not acted in good faith, that he had tried to buy the house over Goodall' s head, and that the purchase was wholly indepen- dent of his agency. In the course of his summing up the learned judge directed the jury that if the plaintiff had schemed to buy the house himself he had not properly discharged his duty as agent, and ultimately they found a verdict for the defendant. Mr. B. Hutchinson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Waterson (instructed by Messrs. Edmunds and Holmes) for the defendant. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater v. Clark. City of London Court, 19 April, 1881. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiv., p. 183. Procuration fee Commission payable though not expressly stipulated for Implied right to charge custotnary commission. This action was brought by the well-known auctioneers and house agents to recover from the defendant 18, being COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. S the procuration fee of 1 per cent., on obtaining for him an advance of 1,300 on the security of D'Olier Villa, Wands- worth Common. In support of the plaintiffs' case Mr. Tewson deposed that he had been employed by the defendant to arrange the mortgage, which he did, charging the usual procura- tion fee of 1 per cent. The property was sold in the auction room, but not by public auction. After the first offer the defendant came to him and spoke about purchasing. A question arose whether any of the money would be allowed to remain, and subsequently Mr. Tewson informed the defendant by letter that he could get him the money necessary at 5 per cent. The defendant's case was that he had expressly stipulated not to pay any procuration fee, but this was denied by Mr. Tewson, who alleged that the subject of procuration or commission was not mentioned, and founded his claim on his right to make a reasonable charge for services rendered. It was admitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the gentlemen who had made the advance were not clients of theirs, but it was stated that they were persons known by Messrs. Debenham and Co. to be able to advance money on properties. A verdict was given for the plaintiffs for the full amount of their claim. Jay v. Noble. Queen's Bench Division, 15 June 1881. Before Mr. Justice Bowen and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol xxiv., p. 327. Commission to be paid like purchase-money Payment in bonds. This was an action brought by Mr. Jay, a land agent of Fleet Street, for 1,000, the commission note on which the claim was based running : " Dear Sir, In the event of your introducing to us a purchaser for Ledburn Manor, Devonshire, in consideration thereof, I will pay you one thousand pounds (1,000). Charles Noble. To Charles Jay, Esq." The defence was that Mr. Jay had never found Mr. Noble a purchaser within the meaning of this letter, and the defendant paid 200 into Court as sufficient to cover the plaintiff's claim. 14 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. The facts appeared to be that Mr. Noble originally saw Mr. Jay as to the sale of the estate, which was heavily mortgaged, in June 1880, when he told him that he knew a Mr. Marks who had purchased a property in Suffolk from a Mr. Cooper, and had paid for it by bonds on a i-ever- sionary estate belonging to a Mr. Chichester and situate in Ireland. The plaintiff agreed to be paid in this way, and it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the 1,000 mentioned in the commission note subsequently made did not mean cash, but bonds that is that Mr. Jay was to receive his commission in the same way as the vendor. Mr. Marks eventually purchased the Ledburn Manor Estate for Mr. Chichester, for 25,447, payment to be made in bonds as agreed, but with regard to his commission Mr. Jay could not succeed in obtaining more than an offer of 200 in cash and 800 in bonds. This he declined to accept and held out for the 1,COO in cash, but ultimately consented to a judgment in his favour for 200, in addition to the 200 paid into Court and costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Charles, Q.C., and Mr. J. V. Austin ; for the defendant : Mr. Mclntyre, Q.C., Mr. dhannell and Mr. Clement Higgins. Parkinson v. Howell and another. Guildhall, 9 December, 1881. Before Mr. Justice North aiid a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiv., p. 631. First introduction efficient cause of sale Two commissions payable. The plaintiff in this case was an auctioneer and estate agent, carrying on business in Addison Road, Kensington, and the defendants were builders, having house property in Shepherd's Bush. The action was brought to recover 94 17s. 6d., commission alleged to be due on the sale of five houses to a Mr. Tippetts, who was introduced to the defendants by the plaintiff, but who at first made no offer to buy, though he thoroughly examined the property. Afterwards, Mr. Parnell, another auctioneer, called on the defendants and asked them if they had any property to put in his next sale at Tokenhouse Yard, and the five houses COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 15 in question were put in the catalogue, and a copy was sent to Mr. Tippetts. About ten days before the sale that gentleman called on Mr. Parnell and offered 3,000 for the five houses, which offer was declined. At the auction a Mr. May appeared for Mr. Tippetts and bought one house under the hammer for 780, and on the same day Mr. May, Mr. Parnell and Mr. Howell had a discussion which resulted in Mr. May purchasing three more of the houses for 735 each. Eventually Mr. Parnell sold Mr. May the remaining house for 710, and only received 54 from the defendants for his commission. Mr. Tippetts deposed that if it had not been for the pre- liminary negotiations and the acquaintance with the property which he acquired in consequence, he would not have given Mr. May instructions to act for him at the auction. Mr. Justice North told the jury that there were cases in which commission might be payable to more than one claimant, and if they thought that the introduction of Mr. Tippetts to the defendants by the plaintiff was the cause which eventually led to the purchase, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff, but for the defendants if they considered that there was an entirely independent transac- tion dating from the receipt by Mr. Tippetts of Mr. Parnell's sale catalogue. The jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Meadows White, Q.C., and Mr. Armytage; for the defendants , Mr. Willis, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler. Proctor and Frazer v. Morris. Clerkenwell County Court, 4 May, 1882. Before His Honour Judge Whitbread. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxv., p. 200. Claim for advertising and services though commission not earned Attempted sale. This was a case in which the plaintiffs, who were auctioneers, of Brick Lane, Spitalfields, sued the defendant for 10 10s. for advertising and printing, and services rendered with regard to the attempted sale of a tavern 16 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. belonging to him. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant had called on them and stated that he wanted to get rid of the tavern, and they were to do the best they could to find a purchaser. It was agreed that if the house was not sold by them they were to be paid 10 10s. for advertising and other expenses. Accordingly they adver- tised the house for sale ; but it was sold by someone else, in whose hands the defendant had placed it. They stated that the defendant had promised to pay them the amount of their claim, but the latter paid 2 2s. into Court and alleged that nothing had been said as to the amount of remuneration the plaintiffs were to have. He admitted that he had authorized them to insert a preliminary advertisement. The learned judge said that he considered that the evidence of the defendant had made out the case for the plaintiffs, in whose favour he gave judgment. Morris v. Marsden. Blackpool County Court, 24 May, 1882. Before His Honour Judge Hulton. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxv., p. 248. Goods sold privately after instructions to auctioneer Full com- mission due. Mr. Morris had given instructions to Mr. Marsden to sell by auction the whole of the furniture and effects con- tained in his house. Accordingly the latter took an inventory, had a large poster printed and put on the walls, and also advertised the sale in the local newspapers, but on going to the house to conduct the sale as arranged, he found the place stripped of nearly all the goods mentioned on the poster and advertisements, nothing but odds and ends being left. He remonstrated with Mr. Morris, but the latter told him that he claimed the right to do as he liked with his own property, even if he had given instruc- tions for it to be sold by auction, upon which Mr. Marsden told him that he should retain out of the proceeds of the auction of what was left 5 per cent, commission on the 49 of goods which had been sold privately. This action was then brought by Morris for 2 9s., the amount of the commission retained. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 17 The learned judge ruled that the auctioneer was entitled to his full commission, after having had the furniture and effects put into his hands to dispose of by public auction, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs. Beal v. Biddulph. Queen's Bench Division, 7 June, 1882. Before Mr. Baron Huddle- ston and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxv., p. 280. Two agents claiming commission Sale not entirely brought about by plaintiff. The plaintiff was an estate agent in Eegent Street, and the defendant, Colonel Biddulph, was the owner of BurtDn Park, near Petworth, Sussex, and had placed the estate on the books of the plaintiff to find him a tenant at a rent of 1,000 a year. The plaintiff spent money in printing and advertising, and eventually a Colonel Goodman called on him and received an order to inspect. Nothing, however, came of this, nor of a second visit to the property by Colonel Goodman, and the matter appeared to have fallen through till about ten months afterwards, when the Colonel happened to see, through an advertisement in a newspaper, that Burton Hall was still to let. He called upon Messrs. Walton and Lee, another firm of house agents, whose name was in the advertisement, and through them came to terms with Colonel Biddulph. The plaintiff at once applied to that gentleman for his commission, on the ground that the estate had been let through his instru- mentality, he having originally introduced and given orders to view to the person who ultimately became the tenant, but the defendant said that the estate had been let entirely through Messrs. Walton and Lee, whose com- mission he had paid. In the course of the trial a letter was read from Colonel Biddulph to the plaintiff stating that he must thoroughly understand that unless the estate was let entirely through his agency he would not have any commission. Upon these facts the learned judge quoted Green v. Bartlett, and said that the jury would have to consider 18 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. firet, whether the relation of landlord and tenant between Colonel Biddulph and Colonel Goodman had been brought about by the plaintiff ; secondly, whether the letting of the estate was brought about entirely by the plaintiff's agency ; and thirdly, whether the printing claimed for was done on the terms that the defendant should pay for it. The jury found that the relation of landlord and tenant had been brought about by the plaintiff, but as they answered the second and third questions in the negative, Mr. Baron Huddleston entered a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. R. O. Glenn ; for the defendant, Mr. Bompas, Q.C., and Mr. Sidney Woolf. Farebrother and Co. v. Cox. Queen's Bench Division, 18 July, 1883. Before Mr. Justice Manisty and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxvi., p. 228. Alleged custom of trade Commission on lots bought in Quantum meruit. In the summer of 1882, the defendant had intimated to the plaintiffs that he wished to give them instructions to sell his private house in Wimpole Street, and his valuable collection of pictures in Pall Mall. At the beginning of November in that year Mr. Cox said that he wished the plaintiffs to advance him 2,000, for which he would deposit as security a large picture by Mr. Frith, R.A., known as the " Salon d'Or at Hamburg," and also give his promissory note. A few days afterwards the terms upon which they were to sell his property were arranged. They were to make him an advance of 2,000, which they did, and to undertake the sales by auction of the whole of his pictures, of the lease of his house in Wimpole Street with the furniture there, and of his freehold and leasehold premises, Nos. 57 and 58, Pall Mall, whilst he promised to employ them to act for him as auctioneers and agents, and to pay them a commission of 7 per cent, on the amount realized by the sale of his pictures, subject to a rebate of COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 19 2 per cent., to include all expenses, and one of 6 percent, on the sale of his house and effects at Wi to pole Street and his property in Pall Mall. Before the first sale the defendant suggested a reserve being put on some of the pictures, and consequently when . these prices were not reached at the sales the pictures were knocked down to Mr. Cox or his agents. The value of the pictures knocked down at the sales amounted to 14,836, but that of thos actually sold was 3,255. The plaintiffs claimed commis- sion on the larger sum, but the defendant alleged that he was only bound to pay it on tue smaller amount. In other words, though the action was nominally brought to recover 2,000, the amount of the unpaid promissory note, the plaintiffs' case substantially was that they were entitled to commission upon the whole of the pictures put up for sale by them for Mr. Cox, whether sold to members of the public or to himself or his agents ; or, in the alternative, to a commission of 5 per cent, on those sold to the public, and to one regulated by the custom of the trade on the lots bought in, or, at any rate, to a quantum meruit in respect of such last-named pictures. They sought to show that when an auctioneer was employed to sell pictures at a fixed rate of commission, and the owner afterwards directed him to put a reserve on some of them (which were as a matter of fact subsequently bought in) there was a custom which entitled the auctioneer to be paid a commission on those bought in. The proof of such a custom, however, was not established, as the evidence went to show that it was not general throughout the trade, but the amount claimed by auctioneers under the circumstances varied with different firms. Mr. Justice Manisty, in summing up, said that in his opinion the plaintiffs were only entitled to the agreed com- mission on the amount receired by them from the public, though the buying-in by the defendant was only a post- ponement of the sale, and the plaintiffs might have a right at the proper time to require the defendant to employ them to sell the pictures bought in. It would be advisable for the parties to come to terms, but as the case stood he must direct the jury to find for the defendant. Judgment accordingly with costs. c 2 20 , COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Beningfield v. Kynaston. Queen's Bench Division, 26 Nov., 1886. Before Mr. Baron Huddle- ston and Mr. Justice Manisty. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 58 ; and Vol. xxx., p. 27. Purcliaser failing to complete Agent's right to commission. In this case the plaintiff, an auctioneer, valuer, and estate agent in the City, was, in January, 1888, applied to by the defendant, a tenant for life, to obtain for him a pur- chaser for an estate called Northlands, at Stanford-le-Hope, in Essex. The agent was to have "the usual commission out of the purchase-money." The plaintiff found a pur- chaser of the estate for 6,250, and the purchaser paid the 10 per cent, deposit, 525. The contract contained the condition "that if from any cause the purchase shall not be completed on June 1 the purchaser shall pay interest, and if the purchaser shall fail to comply with the condition, the sum of 525 shall be forfeited." The purchaser failed to complete and so forfeited the deposit-money, which was retained, and the estate was put up for sale by auction, and was sold for 6,100 to another purchaser. The plaintiff then claimed his commission of 2 per cent, upon 5,250, amounting to 135. The claim was disputed, and hence this action, which was tried before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a jury, before whom it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that a purchaser had been found, as a deposit had been received from him and retained. On the other side, it was insisted there was no real purchaser. The learned judge left it to the jury whether there was a purchaser able to complete the purchase. The jury found in the negative, and the learned judge gave judgment for the defendant, the vendor of the estate. The Divisional Court (Mr. Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Manisty) set this judgment aside, and entered for the plaintiff, the agent, for the amount of the commission that is, the commission on the original sale. The defendant appealed, and the original judgment in his favour was restored by the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Bowen and Fry. Their lordships were of opinion that the real contract between the parties was that commission should be paid out of the purchase- money, and not to pay commission if a purchaser was COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 21 found, whether he completed or no. " The true construc- tion of the agreement," said Lord Justice Bowen, " was that the commission should be paid only if the purchase- money was received, and received from the purchaser found by the agent. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr, Willis, Q.C,, and Mr. Firth; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Waddy, Q.C., and Mr. Eaven." Driver and Co. v. The Trustees of the Marquis of Camden. Chancery Division. Before Mr. C. M. Roupell, Official Referee. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., pp. 52, 101, and 117. Mate of Commission Evidence of custom of the trade Large property. The plaintiffs were the well-known firm of land agents and surveyors, Messrs. Driver and Co., of Whitehall, and the defendants were the trustees of the Marquis of Camden and their solicitors. The cause of action arose out of the sale of the Wilderness Estate at Sevenoaks, the plaintiffs claiming the sum of 1,486 as commission and incidental expenses in connection with the sale and valuation of timber, they alleging that the purchaser was introduced by them and that they were instructed to negotiate and conclude the sale of the estate; In supporting the claim Mr. Robert Collier Driver de- posed that hid valuation had been 170,000 for the whole of the estate, with the timber in addition ; and the portion bought by Sir Charles Mills was valued by him at the amount of the purchase-money, viz., 100,000. On this amount he had charged ^ per cent, commission, which was the usual charge made by surveyors of standing for nego- tiating a salt; of such magnitude, whether the sale took place by auction or by private contract. In the case of Brown v. Ravage, in Chancery, the amount realised at three sales was 94,000 and the Court allowed him a commission of 2 per cent, on the first 5,000, 1 per cent, on the second 5,000, | percent, on the next 10,000, and per cent, on he remainder of the purchase-money at each sale, the various t 22 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. incidental expenses being extra. Mr. Driver then gave the details of the cases in which commissions had been received by him on the sales of estates, including the following : Addington Park Estate, near Maidstone, purchase-money, 16,045 ; commission paid, 1 per pent, on the whcle, with expenses in addition. He had sold five estates for the Admiralty realising 953,504, and valued the timber there- on at 92,461. The commissions varied, but averaged rather more than f per cent, and all expenses, and for the timber he was paid on an average 2 per cent, and expenses. The cases cited were analogous to that of the Wilderness Estate, and the commission obtained had never been disputed. Mr. DriverX evidence as to the proper rate of commission chargeable in sales of such magnitude was confirmed by members of the firms of Chinnock, Galsworthy and Chin- nock, Debenham, Tewson and Co., Daniel Watney and Sons, and several other firms of great eminence, and after such an array of testimony as to the custom of the trade the full amount of Messrs. Driver's claims was awarded them. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Tindall Atkinson ; coun- sel for the defendants : Mr. Alexander. Motion v. Griffin. Lord Mayor's Court, 1 February, 1887. Before the Assistant Judge and a jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 64. Commission not recoverable when property not sold, though work done and advertisements inserted. The plaintiff, Mr. James Motion, a public-house broker, of 36, Finsbury Pavement, sued the defendant, Mr. James Griffin, to recover the sum of 24 15s. 6d., commission and out-of-pocket expenses on the sale of a public-house. The sum of 1 4s. was paid into Court as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs case was that he had known the defendant for four or five years, and had had the public-house in question on his books for about that period. The particulars of the house were that there was a lease of 20 years, rent 80, price 2,500. He did a COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. & considerable amount of work in trying to sell the house and went through the brewers' and distillers' books for the purpose of effecting a change. It was arranged that he was to have 25 guineas and costs out of pocket if he sold the house. He spent 8 in advertisements and 10s. 6d. in postage and out-of-pocket expenses. He contended that although he did not sell the property he was entitled to his commission, because he had inserted advertisements for the sale of the property by auction. The learned judge, how- ever, ruled that the commission was not recoverable. As to the expenses, the jury found for the plaintiff for 10 guineas, for which amount judgment was given. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Laing (instructed by Mr. Yeo) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Haig (instructed by Mr. Withers). Wickenden v. Fowler. Sussex Assizes, 20 February, 1887. Before Mr. Justice Grove and. a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 112. Contract of sale not carried out Purcliaser must be ivilling as well as able to complete. This was an action brought by Messrs. H. and F. Wick- enden, auctioneers and valuers, of Tunbridge Wells, against Mr. Henry Fowler, solicitor's clerk, at Hastings, to recover the sum of 60, the amount of commission on the sale of a public-house at Hastings. The defence was that the plaintiffs had arranged that no commission should be paid unless the purchase was completed, and that as it was not completed the plaintiffs were not entitled to any commission. It appeared that a man named Blackwell, the lessee of the Bedford Hotel, Hastings, got into the hands of the defendant Fowler, a solicitor's clerk. There was a mort- gage on the house by a man named Hubbard, well known at Hastings as a money lender, and Mr. Barnes, a solicitor, was also mixed up in the matter. Mr. Barnes came to know that the Bedford Hotel was in the market, and not wishing that anyone at Hastings should conduct the sale, he wrote to Messrs. Wickenden to know whether 24 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. they would undertake it. He stated that there were circum- stances which necessitated a speedy sale, and asked them to divide the commission on the sale with him. Messrs. Wickenden immediately introduced a Mr. Martin, of Green- wich, who was in a position to take the house. Messrs. Wickenden sent a telegram to Barnes to that effect, and later on a letter stating that Martin would come down to Hastings to view the house. They saw the place, and Martin was satisfied with it, and determined, upon the representations made to him, to buy the house. Messrs. Wickenden ascertained from the solicitors to Mr. Martin that he was prepared to enter into a contract for the pur- chase and carry it out, and he brought that fact to the knowledge of Barnes and Fowler. It was suggested that Martin should hand over a deposit pending the completion of the purchase. Messrs. Wickenden agreed to this, and offered to hold the money. 100 was suggested, but eventually 230 was agreed upon. Fowler and Barnes suggested that Hubbard should hold the deposit, and to this Messrs. Wickenden consented. Accordingly 200 was paid by Martin and went into the possession of Hubbard. The contract was signed to purchase by Martin, tbe estate at that time being in Fowler's hands. Martin, however, did not complete and forfeited his deposit. This having come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs they demanded payment of their commission, and not receiving a satis- factory answer commenced this action. Mr. Frederick Wickenden gave evidence to the effect that when he went to Hastings to see Mr. Barnes he asked him what he meant by the remark in his letter to " divide the commission." Barnes in reply asked what he would be allowed. Witness said that where solicitors introduced business to them and desired to share the commission they usually allowed one- third. Barnes said that would do, and asked what the charge would be. Witness handed him a printed scale of the firm, which showed that the charge was 5 per cent, up to 1,000, and 2 per cent, for the remainder. Barnes replied that that meant a lot of money, and witness said that as the purchase-money was heavy he would accept 60 as commission. Barnes then said, " Very well, you must arrange that with Fowler." It was argued on the plaintiff's behalf that the purchaser would have completed if it had COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 25 not been for an arrangement come to between the parties behind the back of the plaintiff firm, but Mr. Justice Grove was of opinion that the commission was only to be paid on condition that the plaintiffs found a purchaser. He understood that to mean a person who was not only able but willing to purchase, and held that the plaintiffs must be non-suited. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Gill ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Parsons. Walton v. Lucas. Westminster County Court, 10 March, 1887. Before His Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 148. Where no express agreement usual rate of commission chargeable Evidence of custom. Messrs. Walton and Co., auctioneers and estate agents, of Sackville Street, Piccadilly, sued Mr. Arthur Lucas, of 31, New Bond Street, fine art publisher, to recover the sum of 30 10s., as commission on letting a portion of his premises to a Mr. Finney, for a term of eight years, at a rental of 340 per annum, with a premium of 100. It appeared that the defendant gave a representative of the plaintiffs instructions to let the premises, and expressed his willingness to pay their commission if a tenant was found. Shortly after the plain tiffs introduced a gentleman, who made the defendant an offer which he accepted, and an agreement embodying the terms arranged was drawn up at the plaintiffs' offices and signed by the parties, and a deposit of 20 paid to the defendant. Later on that day the defendant saw the plaintiff, and, in the course of con- versation, said, " I have made no special arrangement with you as to commission, but I suppose if I give you 20 you will be satisfied ? " The plaintiff declined to accept this, and informed the defendant the commission would be cal- culated on the usual scale, and whatever it worked out at would be charged. On the signing of the lease the defendant wrote to the plaintiff informing him of the settle- ment, and enclosing a cheque for 20, " commission agreed 26 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. upon." The plaintiff at once returned it, with an account of their charges, viz., 7 per cent, on one year's rental and 5 per cent, on the premium. The defendant refused pay- ment, and this action was thereupon brought. The defendant then paid 22 into Court (being at the rate of 5 per cent, on rental and premium), and pleaded that he had tendered this sum before the action in full satisfaction. Tnese facts having been proved by the evidence of Mr. "Walton and his clerk, both of whom deposed as to the charges made beingjfair and usual, Mr. Arthur Chartres, of the firm of Beal, Son and Chartres, estate agents, of 20, Regent Street, W., and Mr. William Jacobs, auctioneer, of 1, Angel Court, Throgmorton Street, were called on behalf of the plaintiffs, to give evidence as to the charge of 7 per cent, on one year's rental being customary when property ie let for more than three years. The defendant's case was that he first put particulars of his property on the books of Messrs. White, Druce and Brown, who agreed to charge him 5 per cent, if they let it, and offered to take the exclusive agency at 2 per cent. ; he thought, therefore, when giving particulars to other agents, some twenty of whom applied to him, that he would be charged no more by the one who let. He admitted that he made no special arrangement with plaintiffs, but con- sidered they ought to have informed him what their fee would be, and that the charge of 7 per cent, had been " sprung upon him " after the letting had been completed. The learned judge, in summing up, told the jury there was no doubt the plaintiffs were entitled to a commission on letting the premises. The question was how much? The defendant said he had arranged with Messrs. White, Druce and Brown ; why did he not try to make an arrange- ment with the plaintiffs ? and if he did not know what their charges were he might have asked. As he had not done so, they were entitled to make the usual charges. The jury found for the plaintiffs, for the full amount of their claim. Mr. Stephen Lynch was counsel for the plaintiffs. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 27 \ White and others v. Lucas. Queen's Bench Division, 24 March, 1887. Before Mr. Justice Grove and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 149. Evidence of retainer of agent necessary House must be sold through instrumentality of agent. This was an action by Messrs. White, Berry and Taylor, house agents, of Halkin Street, Hyde Park Corner, against a gentleman residing in Belgrave Square, to recover 382 10s., commission on the sale of a mansion, 94, Lancaster Gate, to a Mr. Tarn, in June, 1884, for 22,000. The defendant denied the employment of the plaintiffs as his agents in that behalf, and alleged that the sale was not effected through the instrumentality of the plaintiffs, but through a Mr. Buckingham, a mutual friend of his and Mr, Tarn's. The defendant said he had refused to allow the plaintiffs to enter the house on their books and registers, but if they would bring him a client of theirs who would offer 25,000 guineas he might entertain the offer ; but even then he should not bind himself to sell. It appeared that Mr. Tarn had gone over the house in October, 1883, with one of the plaintiffs' cards, but the negotiations were then dropped until the matter was again brought on in the following year through the intervention of Mr. Bucking- ham. The plaintiffs made their claim in May, 1885, and repeated it in July ; but the defendant referred them to his solicitor and disputed his liability. On July 17, 1885, the plaintiffs wrote to Mr. Tarn, asking what price he had given for the house so that they might make a claim on Mr. Lucas, saying they had introduced him, but Mr. Tarn replied that was a secret between him and the defendant, and he could not reveal it without his permission. Mr. Justice Grove, in summing up. said there were two questions in the case. First, was there an employment proved by the plaintiffs of their firm as agents in other words, any ''retainer" made out which the plaintiffs were bound to do before they could charge the defendant commission ? Secondly, if so, was it by anything the plaintiffs had done i.e., through their instrumentality the best phrase he could adopt that the house was sold ? If these two things were proved to the satisfaction of the 28 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. jury, then the plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable re- muneration. It was not at all improbable that Mr. Tarn would have bought the house if neither he nor the de- fendant had ever heard of the plaintiffs' firm. The defendant asserted that he was expressly careful not to con- tract with them so as to be bound by their acts as his agents, and he forbade them to place the house on their books and registers, saying he did not wish to have it " hawked about." The jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiffs: Mr. Finlay, Q.C., and Mr. K. S. Wright ; counsel for the defendant : Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., Mr. Channel!, Q.C.,andMr. G. C. Cope. Giddy and Turner v. Ayerst. Westminster County Court, 24 March, 1887. Before His Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 149. Several agents employed to let The first introducer of a lessee entitled to commission. This was an action brought by Messrs. Giddy and Turner, house agents in Pall Mall, who sued the defendant, Mr. Ayerst, for the sum of 38 19s., their commission for letting a house called Hartlands, near Cranford, to Mrs. Campbell. The commission was on the rent of 200, on the amount of the premium for the lease, and on the sale of the fixtures. The plaintiffs contended that the intro- duction which led to Mrs. Campbell taking the house was brought about by them, although the transaction was not carried out by them. In November, 1883, Mr. Ayerst instructed the plaintiffs to find a purchaser of the lease of his house, and subsequently the plaintiffs gave 18 or 20 orders to view. They put the particulars of the property in their monthly list, and Mrs. Campbell, who saw that list, wrote to them for an order to view. Mrs. Campbell saw the house and liked it, but the negotiations broke down because of the premium demanded by Mr. Ayerst. Mrs. Campbell afterwards went to Messrs. Hampton and Sons with reference to a house, and they also gave particulars of Hartlands, which, it appeared, she ultimately took. Mr. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 29 1 Ayerst did not inform Messrs. Giddy and Turner that the house was let, and that firm afterwards issued an order to view to a person who returned saying that the house was let. Hence the present claim. Evidence was given on the part of the plaintiffs that it was a common practice to put the letting of a house into the hands of several agents, but when such a house was let it was the custom to inform all the agents interested in the letting of the property of the fact. It did the agents an injury if they were not so informed at once. Mrs. Campbell deposed that she would not have seen* the house but for Messrs. Giddy and Turner, and the defendant admitted in cross-examination that it was pos- sible that he knew that lady was the same person as had been introduced by the plaintiffs before the transaction was concluded. The learned judge, at the conclusion of the evidence, held that the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to recover, and entered judgment in their favour. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Houghton ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Wedderburn. Langley v. Rossell. Nottingham County Court, 24 May, 1887. Before His Honour Judge Bristow. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 277. Indirect Introduction Right to Commission Green v. Bartlett. In this case James Martin Langley, estate agent, Not- tingham, sought to recover the sum of 25 for commission alleged to be du in respect of the sale of certain property in Eadford Eoad to a Mr. Smith. The defendant had placed several properties in the plaintiff's hands in May, 1886, for sale, which were to be inserted in the plaintiff's register with the exception of one lot on Radford Road, the property in question. On the 17th of May the plaintiff sold one of the above-named properties situated in the Alfreton Road, Nottingham, to Mr. Smith, and on the following day the defendant called and paid the commission on the sale of this property, and arranged that 25 should be the commission if the Radford 30 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Eoad property was sold. Shortly afterwards Mr. Smith, the purchaser of the first property, also purchased the Kadford Koad property. Plaintiff on hearing this de- manded commission on the ground that the introduction was through his agency, inasmuch as he had given details of the property to Mr. Smith, the purchaser, at the time the details of the former property were given. This the defendant denied, and called the purchaser as a witness, who admitted having received particulars of the first property from the plaintiff, but denied ever having had details from him of the second property in Radford Eoad. The plaintiff then contended that failing the .satisfactory proofs of these facts he was entitled to commission as being the means of indirectly introducing the purchaser to the vendor for the purchase of the second property. The learned judge, after hearing the evidence, quoted Green v. Bartlett to the effect that if the relation of buyer and seller is really brought about by the act of the agent, he is entitled to commission although the actual sale has not been effected by him. With regard to the facts of the case he added, " The evidence on the whole has satisfied me that the purchaser did in fact obtain particulars of this property from the plaintiff, and in any event it is plain that but for the mediation of the plaintiff the defendant never would have become known to the purchaser at all ; therefore there was evidence of the relation of buyer and seller being brought about by the plaintiff's agency. I think it unreasonable to hold that a seller on placing different properties in the hands of an agent for sale, and having through his agency procured a customer for one of the properties, then sells another of the same properties to the same purchaser, should thereby escape the payment of a commission upon both, when in fact he has commissioned the agent to find a purchaser for both. Therefore, even if I had come to the conclusion that Smith, the purchaser, had not obtained any information whatever as to the Rad- ford Road property from the plaintiff himself, I should upon the whole facts of the case have felt bound to decide in the plaintiffs favour." Judgment was given for the plaintiff accordingly. Mr. E. A. Fraser appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stanger (instructed by Mr. H. Wyle) for the defendant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 31 Eiloart v. Robinson. Marylebone County Court, 22 July, 1887. Before His Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 422. First and original introduction Continuous or original negotiations. The plaintiff was an auctioneer and house agent at Bayswater, and the defendant a member of the firm of Messrs. W. H. Robinson and Son, solicitors. The action was brought to recover the sum of 7 10s., commission due to the plaintiffs for letting the defendant's house, No. 7, Gloucester Place, Hyde Park, to a Mrs. Simpson, at 150 a year, on a three years' agreement. The plaintiff and his clerk proved the introductions and negotiations, which the defendant did not dispute, but contended that the tenant having gone out of town in October and not having entered into further negotiations until the following March, had virtually abandoned the idea of taking the house, and that the fact of her having subsequently taken it was owing to the efforts of Messrs. Towers, Williamson and Ellis, another firm, who alone were entitled to commission. In reply to this it was urged that Mrs. Simpson had not given up the idea of taking this house in especial, but all houses in general, and that her desire for this house, latent during the winter, had revived in the spring, and that she remembered it from the time she first saw it with the plaintiff's order to view. Green v. Bartlett, Bailey v. Chaduriek, and Giddy and Turner v. Ayerst were cited in support of the view that under the circum- stances the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the learned judge in the result came to the conclusion that the case was the same in principle as that of Green v. Bartlett. There had been a conflict of evidence as to the plaintiff's communication with the tenant, but there was no evidence that he acted otherwise than by the instructions of the defendant. He therefore gave judg- ment for the plaintiff. Mr. Clarence Eiloart was solicitor for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mansell Hopkins counsel for the defendant. 82 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Oetzmann and Co. v. Emmott. Queen's Bench Division, 22 October, 1887. Before Mr. Justice A. L. Smith and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 585. An agent must look to his real employer Suing the wrong party. This was an action brought by Messrs. Oetzman and Co., of Hainpstead Road, to recover commission amounting to 62 10s., for introducing a purchaser for a house. The house in question, Elm Bank. Hornsey Lane, was the pro- perty of a gentleman named Ferguson, who died in August, 1886, and it was in June, 1885, placed upon the plaintiff's books for sale at the price of 4,000, by the defendant, Miss Emmott, who was the sister of Mr. Ferguson's deceased wife, and managed his house for him. It appeared that the plaintiffs in the first instance looked to Miss Emmott as the owner, and in some correspondence she referred to the house as "ours"; but in October, 1885, they came into communication with Mr. Ferguson, and subsequently corresponded with him about the house. In June, 1886, a Mr. Marriott, who subsequently became the purchaser, obtained from the plaintiffs an order to view the house. The order was addressed to Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Marriott, who resided in the country, did not then inspect the house, but on his visiting London ip the September following the plaintiffs again mentioned the property to him. According to his evidence, Mr. Marriott then went to Hornsey on September 23, and called at the office of Messrs. Eouch and Parkhouse, house agents there, where he inquired his way to Elm Bank. The clerk told him that the property was in the hands of their firm, and that Messrs. Oetzmann and Co. had nothing to do with it, and then accompanied him to the house. Mr. Marriott stated expressly that it was in consequence of the plaintiffs' introduction that he went to look at the house. This account, however, was contradicted by the clerk, who said that Mr. Marriott came and inquired after a house, and it was only when Elm Bank had been mentioned to him that he referred to the plaintiffs' order. On Sep- tember 24 Mr. Marriott agreed to purchase the house for COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 33> 2,500. It was admitted that the subsequent negotiations were carried oat through Messrs. Kouch and Parkhouse, who were ultimately paid commission on the purchase by Mr. Ferguson's executors. The defence put forward on these facts was (1) that the plaintiffs had been employed by and looked for their commission to Mr. Ferguson ; and (2) that they had not effected any such introduction as would entitle them to commission, and on b-jth points the jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., and Mr. T. W. Chitty ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Bolland. Fuller and others v. Bull. Croydon County Court, 8 November, 1887. Before His Honour Judge Lushington. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 620. Property put up to auction, but afterwards sold by private contract Vendor liable for commission, though sale finally completed by him in person. The defendant, who was a builder, was the owner of certain premise 1 -:, Nos, 86, 87, 38, and 89, Gloucester Road, and other property. The property was put into the hands of Messrs. Fuller, Mooa and Fuller, auctioneers, of Croydon, and the sale was fixed for a date in March, but afterwards postponed. lu the meantime a person named Parris called at the office of the plain tiffs and obtained a copy of the particulars of sale. He afterwards viewed the property, and made an offer, which was not accepted. On the 14th April Parris and others attended the sale, but as the reserve price was not reached the attempt to sell proved abortive. It was stated on behalt of the plaintiffs that it was the custom of auctioneers after an unsuccessful sale to endeavour to dispose of the property by private contract; and after the auction the defendant instructed the plaintiff's to sell by private contract if possible. Con- siderable negotiations took place between the auctioneers and Parris, who refused to give 1,550, but eventually made an offer of 1,200, which he said was his ultimatum, and in the end he bought the property of the defendant for 1,200. The plaintiffs now claimed commission on that 34 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. sale. The defendant did not deny that the property was put up bv the plaintiffs for sale by auction, but distinctly denied subsequent instructions to sell by private contract, or that Mr. Parris was in any way led to this purchase through the agency of the plaintiffs. Evidence of custom was adduced to show that when an auctioneer supplied the first information to a purchaser the charge of commission was properly made, even though, as in this case, the sale -was finally completed by the vendor. At the conclusion oi the evidence the learned judge said that he had no difficulty in deciding that the instructions to sell by private treaty were given, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for 30. Mr. Laxton appeared for the plaintifis, and Mr. A. C. Edwards for the defendant. Sheldrake v. Rymill. Queen's Bench Division, 22 November, 1887. Before Mr. Justice Mathew and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 633. Alternative claim. Commission by agreement or damages on a quantum meruit Alleged attempt by defendant to prevent commission being earned. In this action the plaintiff claimed 5,000, to which he alleged that he was entitled under an agreement with the defendant made in February, 1886. This agreement was admitted, and by it the defendant was to pay the plaintiff 5,000 upon the latter finding a purchaser for the Eoyal Horse Repository, of which the defendant was the proprietor. The purchase-money was to be 135,000. The plaintiff alleged that he had found a purchaser at that price, but that the defendant by his conduct had prevented the com- pletion of the contract. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed damages on a quantum meruit for work and ser- vices rendered the defendant under the agreement. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had ever found a pur- chaser for the property within the terms of the agreement, alleging that it was a condition precedent that the pur- chaser should pay the purchase-money down, and that no purchaser able and ready to do so had been found. The COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 35 defendant also denied that he had in any way throughout the negotiations acted in an unreasonable manner so as to hinder or prevent the plaintiff from earning his commission. Evidence was called on both sides, and in the result the jury found a verdict for the defendant upon both issues, and judment was given accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Waddy, Q.G., and Mr. Fillan ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Glynn. Jolly v. Carter. Lord Mayor's Court, 13 December, 1887. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 668. Rate of commission upon private sale Charge printed on auctioneers' 1 paper. The plaintiff, Mr. Frank Jolly, an auctioneer, carrying on business as F. Jolly and Co., at 66, Leadenhall Street, claimed from the defendant 20 10s., commission at the rate of 2 per cent, on 820, the amount of the purchase- money of some houses in Hertford Street, Mile End Koad, which she had advertised for sale in the daily papers. The plaintiff's clerk called upon her, and obtained from her particulars of them, and the price at which she was willing to sell them. She agreed to pay him commission if he effected a sale, but refused to sign a paper which was shown to her, and denied that she knew anything about 2A- per cent, being his charge, although it appeared that that was the commission printed upon the paper. Some time afterwards a Mrs. Capel called on the plaintiff about purchasing some other property, which had, however, been disposed of, and the plaintiff gave her a card to view the defendant's houses. She went to see them, arid was at first indisposed to buy them, but after a conversation with an agent named Waite she ultimately bought them for 820, with a free conveyance. The plaintiff had ad- vertised the houses, entered them in his books, and had given forty-nine cards to intending purchasers to view the property, but the defendant had paid 5 to Waite for selling the property, and declined to pay the plaintiff. n2 36 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Ihe plaintiff deposed that 2-i- per cent, was the usual charge on sums under 2.000, though sometimes 5 per cent, additional was charged on the first 100. He never knew an instance where a respectable auctioneer charged less than 2 per cent. Asked to look at a letter from another estate agent, in which 1 per cent, was mentioned, he said that that was for sale by public auction. It was not a fair percentage for a gale by private treaty, and 2^ per cent, was as little as any respectable auctioneer could be expected to work for. In summing up the learned judge explained to the jury the law as to direct and indirect introductions, and on the question of the amount ot commission said that though they might take it that some auctioneers would accept less than 2-| per cent., they must say whether that was a reasonable sum. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 20, being 2 per cent, on 800, taking 20 off the purchase-money as the cost of the conveyance, and judgment was entered for that amount. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Wildey Wright ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Torr. Reeves v. Withers. Lord Mayor's Court, 20 December., 1887. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxx., p. 68. Dissolution of partnership - A poiver of attorney given to site. The plaintiff, an architect and surveyor, sought to recover from Messrs. Withers, the owners of Clement's Estate, at Ilford, commission on the sale of four plots of land calculated at 4 per cent, on the capitalized value of the price at which the property was dit-posed of on a building lease. The property had been sold to a Mr. Harlock, who was introduced by the plaintiff, at a ground rental oi 36 a year, which, capitalized at 22 years' pur- chase, would be 792 ; and 4 per cent, on that sum was 31 13s. 6d., the amount of the claim. The plaintiff said said the general charge was one year's ground-rent, but this was rather less. In cross-examination he COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. o7 said that 2J was charged for some of the property sold, but that was sold by auction, and Messrs. Protheroe and Morris and himself divided the commission, each taking 1% per cent. The technical defence was set up that the action ought to have been brought in the name of Whitmore and Reeves, as that was the style of the plaintiff's firm when the work was done, and the defendant was entitled to a receipt from both partners, but in reply to this it was stated that there had been a dissolution of the partnership, and each partner retained the debts with which he had been personally con- cerned. The plaintiff also asked to be allowed to amend the claim by adding the name of Mr. Frank Whitmore under a power of attorney, and the learned judge assenting to this, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. 0. Edwards. Day v. Bate and another. Queen's Bench Division, 16 April, 1885. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii:, p. 122. Instructing an agent and then refusing to sell Alternative claim for commission or damages on a quantum meruit. This was an action brought to recover 175 commission alleged by the plaintiff to be due to him on the price of an hotel belonging to the defendants, for which he had found a willing purchaser to whom the defendants, however, had refused to sell the property. Alternatively he claimed for damages upon a quantum meruit. In December, 1883, the defendant, Miss Elizabeth Bate, called at the plaintiff's office in Bloomsbury Square, and while there either told the plaintiff's clerk, or in answer to him said, that she and her siater would be willing to sell their property, the Torbay Hotel, at Torquay. She informed him that they were ready to grant a lease of it for 14 or 21 years at a yearly rent of 600, receiving 7,000 for the goodwill, &c., and that the hotel had 62 bedrooms, &c. ; 88 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. further, that the ground-rent was 80 per annum, and that they were willing to sell their lease, which had 60 years to run, and everything else, for 16,000. The plaintiff, after some correspondence with the defendants, went to the hotel on March 7, 1884, with a Mr. Cleave, who, having seen it offered to take it on their (defendants') terms for 14 or 21 years, and to pay the deposit at once. Miss Bate and her sister then said that they would rather sell it right out for the 16,000, and on March 14 they were informed that Mr. Cleave had agreed to pay this price for it. The defendants, having then con- sulted their solicitor, determined not to sell the hotel at all, and at once wrote to Mr. Cleave to this effect. After hearing the plaintiffs evidence, Lord Coleridge remarked that on looking at the correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendants, who as a matter of fact had both signed the letters addressed to him, it seemed clear that though the commission on the sale of the hotel might not have been earned, the defendants could scarcely expect to pay nothing for the work done for them by the plaintiff. There had, in fact, very nearly been a sale of the property through his agency, and he could not be expected to work for nothing. He was entitled to recover something on a quantum itieruit. After this expression of opinion on the part of the learned judge, a consultation between the counsel engaged took place, and it was arranged to take a verdict for the plaintiff for an amount which was agreed upon between the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Waddy, Q.C., and Mr. H. D. Greene ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Collins, Q.C., and Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald. Belton and Son v. Burrows. Queen's Bench Division, 23 April, 1885. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 147. Alternative claim Alleged revocation of authority. The plaintiffs here sued to recover 187 10s. for com- mission due from the defendant on the sale of a public- house, or alternatively upon a quantum menrit. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 39 The plaintiffs were public-house brokers carrying on business in Hatton-garden, and the defendant in February, 1884, was the owner of a public-house in the King's Eoad, Chelsea, known as the " Man in the Moon." The defendant had only bought the house in December, 1883, when he had paid 7,750 for it, but he had instructed the plaintiffs, in February, 1884, to sell it for him if they could find a purchaser at the same price. As it was found out that they could not sell it by private treaty, he asked them in May to put it up for sale by auction, and they advertised the sale towards the end of that month. The sale did not take place, as the defendant asked that it should be withdrawn. He wrote to the plaintiffs on June 3, and expressed his willingness to sell it to any purchaser who might come to them and make a proper offer for it. On June 6, 1884, however, he sold it through another broker to a Mr. Videon for 7,500, and it was on this sum that the plaintiffs now claimed a commission of 2 per cent. Their case was that they had first mentioned the property to Mr. Videon and that the broker through whom the actual purchase had been made had gained his information from the advertise- ment which they had inserted when intending to sell the property by auction. The defence to the action was that the authority given by the defendant to the plaintiffs had been revoked, and that at the time of the sale to Mr. Videon they had ceased t > act for him. He paid a sum of 10 19s. into Court for the expenses to which the plaintiffs had been put in advertising the house, &c., and 10 10s. for their work. In the result the jury after deliberating a short time found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 15 15s. beyond the amount paid into Cuurt, and judgment was given ac- cordingly. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. R. T. Reid, Q.C., and Mr. Haigh ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., and Mr. Winch. 40 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Houghton v. Organ. Reading County Court, 16 July, 1885. Before His Honour Judge Vernpn Lushington. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 293. Revocation of authority by lapse of reasonable time Right to com- mission gone. The plaintiff in this case was an auctioneer in Reading, and the defendant an hotel keeper at Chislehurst. The defendant formerly kept the " White Hart," Maidenhead, and the plaintiff was suing him for services and adver- tising in connection with its disposal. The plaintiff had the letting of the " White Hart " Hotel in 1881, and found a customer, who forfeited 100. On the plaintiff paying over to the defendant Q5, the remainder was left in the plaintiff's hands for the expenses, and the defendant signed a new agreement dated Pebruary 15, 1883, to employ the plaintiff to dispose of the hotel and pay him 5 per cent, commission if he disposed of it. The plaintiff was unable to find a customer down to September 22, 1884. In the meantime a number of letters had passed between the parties. On September 22, 1884, the defen- dant wrote to the plaintiff to send in his bill for advertis- ing, but he did not tell him he had sold the hotel, and it was not till March, 1885, that he found out that the defen- dant had disposed of it. The plaintiff also sent in his bill for advertising, and had no reply. The learned judge held that the September letter of the defendant practically in- formed the plaintiff that the contract was at an end. The question was whether on the 22nd of September reasonable time for the plaintiff to dispose of the property had run out. The agreement was a very onerous one for the defen- dant, and no tribunal would enforce it harshly against him. Looking at the circumstances that the house had been in Mr. Houghton's hands since 1881, and that upwards of eighteen months had passed since the signing of the new agreement (although hotel property was depressed during that period), he thought that a reasonable time had run out on the 22nd of September, and that there was no other obli- gation under that contract on the part of the defendant. He therefore held that the plaintiff's claim for commission COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 41 amounting to 41 11s. 9d. could not be maintained. This decision was afterwards affirmed by Lord Chief Justice >Coleridge and Mr. Justice Grove in the Queen's Bench Division. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. W. A. Pocock ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Haigh. Lawrence v. Hudsen. Lord Mayor's Court, 26 August, 1885. Before Sir W. T. Charley, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 364. Commission payable on signing agreement Insolvent purchaser. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover against the defendant 22 I Os. commission, under an agreement for introducing a purchaser of some building plots at Tottenham. The plaintiff's case was that whilst travelling in a rail- way train with the defendant's partner, named Baker, the latter stated that they had 15 plots of land which they either wanted to sell or would let on a 99 years' lease, and would pay the plaintiff 2^ per cent, if an agreement was entered into. An agreement was entered into with a man named Sheffield, who built five houses, but did not enter upon the remaining ten plots. Sheffield having got into difficulties the defendants loreclosed, and took possession of everything ; and the plaintiff considered that he had done all that he was bound to do under the agreement, .and that the defendants having agreed with Sheffield for the building of the houses, he was entitled to the agreed percentage upon the whole of the 15 lots, reckoned on a 20 years' purchase, although only five had been entered upon. The defence was that no such agreement was come to, that the agreement was to pay 2^ per cent., providing only that a man of substance was introduced, and not a person like Sheffield. Defendants paid 7 10s. into Court, be- cause they considered there might be a legal right on the part of the plaintiff to 2 per cent, on the 3 a year ground- rent of each of the five houses which Sheffield commenced, 42 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. but which they had to finish at their own expense. With reference to the agreement, which plaintiff alleged was subsequently reduced to writing, defendant denied having seen it, and in consequence of the other ten plots, above the five which had been started by Sheffield, not having been touched, not even a sod having been turned, they did not consider themselves liable to pay anything upon them. Tbe learned judge, in summing up, told the jury the question was whether the commission was payable on the signing of the agreement or when the whole of the land was covered with houses, and ultimately they found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed (22) above the 7 10s. paid into Court. Mr. Sims appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Lewis for the defendant. De Jersey v. Mobbs. Lord Mayor's Court, 6 October, 1885. Before Sir Thomas Chambers,. Q.C., Recorder, and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 436. Principal unable to make a title Agent entitled to commission Solicitor signing commission note. "The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. De Jersey and Preston, the mortgage brokers, sued the defendant, Mr. Joshua Mobbs, to recover the sum of 20 commission, which they alleged tbey had earned in procuring a loan of 500 upon certain property said to belong to the defendant,, in Nile Street, Hoxton. Mr. De Jersey deposed that Mr. Faithful, a solicitor, who was acting for the defendant, called upon him and asked if a loan of 500 could be procured upon a mortgage on certain property in Nile Street, Hoxton. The title of the defendant was represented to be good, as he had just succeeded in an action in the Chancery Division in which the question was raised. Upon investigation, however,, it was discovered that the title of the defendant was not good, as he had not been in undisturbed possession since 1856, when the last holder died, and because a claimant COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 43 to the property had come forward in the person of the heir-at-law of the last holder. Moreover, the defendant had only been in possession for two years, and had already been deprived of a portion of the property of the estate. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs could not induce their client to complete the loan. Mr. Coulson, an estate and reversion agent, said he was ready and willing to advance 500 upon the property, at an interest of 4 per week, as it was only a temporary loan, if the title had been good. The defendant, how- ever, did not have such a title as would justify him in advancing 500. For the defence, Mr. Faithful, Mobbs's solicitor, said that he did not have the authority of the defendant to sign any commission note. When he saw the plaintiff he told him the security was bad, and that, in lact, the defendant had no title. The property had been taken all over the city for sale or to raise a loan, without success. It was r in fact, a " white elephant " to the defendont, and he told the plaintiffs so. The jury, however, believed the evidence of the plain- tiffs, and found in their favour for the amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Groom. Ralph v. Inkpen. Stowmarket County Court, 9 October, 1885. Before His Honour Judge Sir F. Roxburgh and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 436. Promise to make a present not equivalent to promise to pay commission. The plaintiff claimed 16 17s. 6d. for commission, and stated that he was on very friendly terms with defendant when the latter expressed a desire to invest some money in good house property. Plaintiff suggested some houses in Ipswich Eoad, Stowmarket, the property of Mr. Charles Fisk, Whitton. Defendant requested him to make all the inquiries he could, and he went to Whitton on several occasions. Various sums were agreed upon by plaintiff 44 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. with Mr. Fisk, with reference to these houses. Defendant told him if he purchased the property he would fully compensate him. The property was ultimately purchased of Mr. Fisk for 675. Several letters which passed between the plaintiff nd the defendant were handed in, including one in which defendant stated that he. never promised to pay commission, but had intended on the completion of purchase to make plaintiff a present. In connection with the buying of the propeity, plaintiff went to Hadleigh in 1881, as requested by defendant, to find out who was the lord of the manor. He had not been paid the expenses of any of these journeys. In cross-examina- tion the plaintiff' admitted that when he asked defendant for compensation he declined to -ay anything, and the learned judge held that under the circumstances he could not maintain his claim, and must be non-suited. Mr. A. A. Watts appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. C. E. Salmon for the defendant. Powell v. Schlesinger. Marylebone County Court, 23 November, 1885. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol xxviii., p. 508. Employing more than one agent First introducers entitled to commission. This action was brought by Messrs. Powell, the estate agents of Bayswater, against Mr. H. Schlesinger, the proprietor of No. 7, Linden Gardens, Bayswater Road, for commission on letting that house to Mr. John Burford, the City auctioneer. It appeared in evidence that Mr. Burford had applied at Messrs. Powell's office for informa- tion of private residences to be let, and was informed of houses in Linden Gardens, an adjacent new street. A clerk of the plaintiffs showed Mr. Burford over No. 7, and gave the terms. At a day soon after, Mr. Burford went again and was recommended by the caretaker to treat with another agent, who also had the house on his books and his bills exhibited in the windows. Accordingly Mr. Burford finally took the house on lease at 120 per annum from the other agent. Messrs. Powell, ascertaining the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 45- circumstances, demanded their commission of 5 per cent. on 1|- years' rent, which Mr. Schlesinger declined to pay as the business was concluded with another agent. The learned judge held that Messrs. Powell, being admittedly the first to bring forward the tenant, were entitled to a verdict. Mr. Sampson was solicitor for the plaintiffs ; Messrs, Bower, Cotton and Co. for the defendant. Griffin and Son v. Cheesewnight. Queen's Bench Division, 20 November, 1885. Before Mr. Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 508. An authority to let not a general authority to find a purchaser Principal not precluded from dealing directly witli purcliaser. In this case the plaintiffs were house agents at Baling, and the defendant was the owner of the lease of a house there named Eaton Villa, Castlebar Hill, which he had instructed them to let for him on a three years' agreement at 75 a year. Mr. Griffin, senior, had admittedly only received instructions from the defendant to let, but his son gave evidence at the County Court that he had been authorised by him a short time afterwards to sell the lease for 1,200. In the plaintiffs' books the original entry relating to the house had been altered by the addition of the words "1,200, ground-rent 11." The plaintiffs gave an order to view the house to Miss Thompson, but she was told nothing by them about the price at which the de- fendant was willing to sell the remainder of his lease, which had some 75 years to run. Miss Thompson's father went to see the house, where he found a card showing that the defendant was the owner of it, and in the result the defendant sold the lease to Mr. Thompson for 1,100, but had only paid to the plaintiffs the commission to which they would have been entitled if they had found a tenant on a three years' agreement. At the close of the plaintiffs' case the learned County Court judge, on being asked to non-suit them, refused to do so, and the defendant then swore that he had never instructed Mr. Griffin, junior, to- 46 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. sell the lease. This point of the instructions to Mr. Griffin, junior, was the chief one in the case, and the following questions were left to the jury : (1) Did the defendant tell the son that he was willing to sell the house ; and (2) if so, did he do it with the view of authorising the sale by the plaintiffs ? The jury having answered them in the negative, judgment was given for the defendant. On appeal to the High Court of Justice it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the learned judge had mis- directed the jury, and should have left it to them to say whether the defendant had not given the plaintiffs general instructions to sell. It was also urged that the defendant had availed himself of the benefit of the services oi the plaintiffs, and had recognised and adopted them. The Court, however, considered that it could not be contended that a man by telling a house agent to let a house for him thereby prevented himself from finding a purchaser for it ; that the County Court judge's duty had only been to direct the jury on the case made out before him, and not on that as to an implied authority having been given to the plaintiffs which had not been set up. The plaintiffs had relied upon proving an express contract having been made between Mr. Griffin, junior, and the defendant, by which they (plaintiffs) had been directly authorised to find a purchaser for the lease. The jury having fouud that no such contract had been made the defendant was entitled to judgment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. McDonell ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Cooper Wyld. Steere v. Smith. Queen's Bench Division, 30 November, 1885. Before Mr. Justice Field. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 521. Indirect introduction Agent finding purcliaser wJio ultimately buys direct from principal. This was an action to recover 100 as commission. The defendant denied that he had ever retained the plaintiff to COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 47 sell the house in question, or that the sale had been brought about by the introduction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff firm were auctioneers and agents at Upper Norwood, and their case was that the defendant, Mr. Alexander Smith, in 1881, had placed his house, Ly-ee- Moon, Upper Norwood, in their hands to sell or let. The plaintiff stated that no result followed until, iu 1884, he came in contact with a Mr, Hindley, through an advertise- ment which he had seen in the Times, who at the time was looking for a house in the southern suburbs of London. The plaintiffs took Mr. Hindley over Ly-ee-Moon, and in- troduced him on the first occasion to the defendant. Mr. Hindley did not, however, make any offer, and took another house in the same road as the defendant's. Ultimately Mr. Hindley purchased Ly-ee-Moon direct from the defen- dant. The plaintiffs claimed 2 per cent, from the latter as their commission on the sale. This the defendant declined to pay, contending that the sale was really and directly brought about by a Mr. Patterson, a mutual friend of, and living in the same road as, Mr. Hindley and the defendant. At the conclusion of the case, Mr. Justice Field held that the well-known principle laid down in Green v. Bartlett viz., that the agent who first introduced the purchaser to the buyer was entitled to his commission, even where the actual sale had not been ultimately effected through him governed the case. This was, in his lord- ship's opinion, a good and useful rule, and he would con- tinue to ast upon it until someone satisfied him that it had been over-ruled. There would, therefore, be a verdict and judgment for 100, the amount the plaintiff claimed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Fitzgerald ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Bankes. Lumley v. Nicholson. Queen's Bench Division, 27 November, 1885. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 520, and Vol. xxix., p. 328. An introduction must be the efficient and not the remote cause of sale Whether it was so or not is a question of fact for a jury. This was an action by Messrs. Lumley against a gentle- man, to recover commission on the sale of land, portion of 48 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. an estate belonging lo him, which had been bold, as they alleged, by their agency or instrumentality for 19,000,. and for which they claimed commission upon their usual scale to the amount of 285. It appeared that the defendant was the owner of an estate near Strood. Kent, called Hoo Lodge and Hoo Farm, which he desired to sell, and in August, 1881, he applied to the plaintiffs, Messrs. Lumley, to endeavour to sell it for him. They accordingly placed it on their books, show- ing him their terms printed, which were these : Commis- sion is chargeable on sale or letting through their instru- mentality at the rate of 5 per cent, on the first 1,000, 2 per cent, up to 5,000, and I per cent, on the residue, with the usual commission on the amount paid for timber, tillage, &c. A Mr. Armitage heard of the estate through the plaintiffs, and negotiations took place with him as to the purchase of it. The estate was valued by the owner altogether at 37,000, but was divided into lots, some of the smaller of which had already been sold, leaving Jots 3, 4, 9 and 10, of which the first three (3, 4 and 9, includ- ing the residential part) were valued at about 15,000. These Mr. Armitage purchased in October, and the plaintiffs had their commission. After this the plaintiff's and Mr. Armitage were in communication up to March, 1882, and in April the defendant withdrew the estate from their books, but they gave him notice that they should claim their commission if Mr. Armitage should purchase the rest of the estate. In 1884 they found that Mr. Armitage had purchased of the defendant the rest of the estate, lot 10, for 19,000, and they then claimed their commission upon it ; but the defendant disputed their claim, and refused their proposal to leave the matter to arbitration, the consequence of which was this action. The plaintiffs' case was put thus : That the sale of the whole was effected through their instrumentality, and that the withdrawal of their authority alter the introduction was immaterial. The defence raised, however, was that the commission was not due on the second transaction, as the original introduction was not the efficient cause of it. Upon this the Lord Chief Justice observed that it was a question for the jury whether the plaintiff's agency was the real cause COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 49 of the second sale, and Mr. Lumley in cross-examination admitted that Mr. Armitage had never made him an offer for the rest of the estate, but declared that he had spoken of his intention ultimately to purchase the rest, and that it had been offered to him and spoken of between them before the withdrawal of the authority. Mr. Armitage on the other hand stated that Messrs. Lumley had introduced him to the estate, and he had purchased part of it, but he did not remember ever saying to Mr. Lumley that he intended to purchase the rest, for he was quite satisfied with what he had purchased. He had only looked over the part he had purchased, and not looked over the rest until two years afterwards, nor had he made up his mind to purchase more until some time after- wards. In summing up, Lord Coleridge said that the rule on which the agent was entitled to his commission was simple enough, and the difficulty was only in the application of it. The rule was that to entitle the agent to his commission it must appear that the sale was brought about by his act that is, his act must have been the real and efficient cause of the sale ; and it would be for the jury to say whether they were satisfied that the second sale in this case was brought about by the act of the plaintiffs. It was stated by the plaintiff, Mr. Lumley, that he had offered the whole estate to Mr. Armitage, who, however, said he could not command the money for the purchase of the whole at that time, but that it was his intention ultimately to purchase the whole. Mr. Armitage, who was an entirely inde- pendent witness, did not remember this, and said that he had not made up his mind to purchase the rest of the estate until long afterwards. Even if it had been in his mind at the time, yet if the jury thought there was a complete se aration between the purchases, and the pur- chaser had dismissed the matter from his mind, and had only resolved to make the second purchase long afterwards, they probably would not consider that the second sale was brought about by the plaintiff, and, if so, they would find their verdict for the defendant. The jury, after a short consultation, found for the defendant, and judgment was given accordingly. A new 50 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. trial was subsequently refused in the Divisional Court by Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Hawkins. Counsel for the plaintiffs: Mr. Channell, Q.C., and Mr. Cope ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., and Mr. Moseley. Houghton v. Scott. Queen's Bench Division, 20 November, 1885. Before Mr. Justice Day. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxiii., p. 514. Agents only the remote cause of a sale A negotiation broken off and a fresh one entered into. This was an action by Messrs. Houghton, a firm of auctioneers, to recover commission from the defendant for introducing a purchaser for a residence belonging to him known as " The Knowle," Walthamstow, which he had instructed them to sell by private treaty. Messrs. Hough- ton induced the purchaser, Mr. Bellingham, to view the property in spite of a very strong prejudice the gentleman had against the neighbourhood of Walthamstow. He afterwards applied to them by letter for a second order to view, and appeared pleased with the property, but said he would not care to purchase, although he was disposed to rent. A suggestion was submitted to the owner by Messrs. Houghton, which was declined. Mr. Bellingham subse- quently called on Messrs. Debenham, Tewson , Farmer and Bridgewater, who had a notice board on the property, when " The Knowle" was again introduced to his notice. Mr. Bellingham said he had already seen the house, but was induced by Messrs. Debenham and Co. to view it again with their order, certain repairs having been recently effected. Messrs. Houghton, having heard that Mr. Bellingham was in treaty with Messrs. Debenham and Co., wrote at once to the defendant to say that in the event of a sale being completed with Mr. Bellingham, they would expect to have their services recognised in the matter, having been the first to introduce the property to Mr. Bellingham. Mr. Scott thereupon denied all liability to pay them commission. Messrs. Houghton offered to sub- mit the queston to arbitration, which Mr. Scott also declined. The residence was eventually purchased by Mr. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 51 Bellingham, and the present action commenced against the owner by Messrs. Houghton. Several witnesses were called in support of the plaintiff's case, but Mr. Justice Day, in the course of his judgment, said that though un- doubtedly Messrs. Houghton did first of all, with consider- able tact and judgment, break through Mr. Bellingham's prejudice against the neighbourhood and induce him to view the property, yet as that negotiation was abortive, and a fresh one entered into with Messrs. Debenham and Co.. he must find for the defendant. The plaintiffs were not, in his opinion, the efficient cause of the sale. Fount ney v. Fox. Queen's Bench Division, 24 November, 1885. Before Mr. Justice Day and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xiviii., p. 532. Commission on two loans What is a separate and distinct transaction ? The plaintiff and defendant in this case were both estate agents. The plaintiff, in the spring of 1883, was asked by the defendant to find a purchaser for the Hextable Estate at Swanley, but not being successful in his efforts, sug- gested that the property should be mortgaged. A firm of solicitors, Messrs. Hardisty and Rhodes, eventually lent 1,500 on 7 acres of the estate, retaining 50 for each acre until the completion of the roads on the pro- perty. The plaintiff duly received commission on this transaction. In the following year Messrs. Hardisty and Rhodes advanced 3,000 more, and the plaintiff was paid Ms commission of 1 per cent, by the defendant as agreed by letter. Subsequently the defendant, requiring a sum of 6,000 to complete his purchase of the estate, obtained a further sum of 6,000 through another firm of solicitors, Messrs. Nash and Field, without the plaintiff's interven- tion. On this transaction the plaintiff did not claim, or receive commission. Later on, at the defendant's request, the plaintiff again introduced him to Messrs. Hardisty and Rhodes, and had several interviews with them in reference to a further advance of from 6,000 to 8,000 on the residue of the property. Messrs. Hardisty and Co. agreed to lend 9,000, Bi 52 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. and suggested that the plaintiff should forego his com- mission on that sum, as they themselves intended to charge commission, and the defendant would not pay both. This, proposition the plaintiff declined, and on the trial it was contended for the defendant that no commission was due to the plaintiff, and the manager to Messrs. Hardisty and Co. deposed that the plaintiff was asked to give up all claim for commission on consideration of having the plans of the estate to draw, to which he agreed. The defendant, how- ever, admitted that the 6,000 obtained from Messrs. Nash and Field was subsequently paid off out of the 9,000 advanced by Messrs. Hardisty and Rhodes, but urged that the employment of plaintiff terminated after the second sum of 3,000 had been advanced, and that the further advance of 9,000 by Messrs. Hardisty and Rhodes was a separate and distinct transaction. The learned judge, in summing up, said the loan from Messrs. Nash and Field was a temporary loan, and had the matter terminated with that loan, plaintiff would have had no claim for further commission ; but the question for the jury was whether the two loans of 3,000 and 9,000 were substantially one transaction. If so, although the plain- tiff's commission note was lor a sum of 8,000 and the amount advanced exceeded tha,t sum, the jury would pro- bably think that the plaintiff was entitled to commission on the whole, notwithstanding that more had been obtained than was at fi'St required. The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgment was given for 138, the amount claimed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Underbill, Q.C., and Mr. Calvert ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Newman. Bray v. Dalgleish. Lord Mayor's Court, 14 December, 1885. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 545. Introdiiction of a partner Commission not claimable from both sides except by agreement. The plaintiff was an auctioneer, carrying on business at 50 Hollo way- road, and he sued the defendant, a wine and spirit merchant in Queen Street, Cheapside, and Leicester COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 53 Square, to recover the sum of 10, commission for intro- ducing a partner. The plaintiff stated that he was con- sulted by Mr. J. H. Barker, part proprietor of the Golden Fleece Tavern, Queen Street, Cheapside, about getting a partner with a capital of 600. He accordingly inserted an advertisement in various papers, which brought him into communication with the defendant, to whom he di- vulged the name of his principal. Mr. Barker and the defendant ultimately entered into partnership, and the plaintiff got 5 from the former gentleman, but had not received anything from the defendant, though his terms were expressly that he should receive commission from both sides. He alleged that the defendant had agreed to these terms, and had written a letter promising payment ; but the defendant positively denied that commission was ever mentioned to him, or that he had written a letter promising to pay. He had known Mr. Barker for years before the plaintiff mentioned his name to him. Mr. Barker having given evidence to the effect that he had paid the plaintiff 5 for his trouble and outlay, the learned judge told the jury that the introducer of a pro- spective partner in any business could not claim commis- sion from both sides unless there was a specific agreement to that effect, and they found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Wildey Wright. Ancrum v. Catleugh and others. Lord Mayor's Court, 20 February, 1886.- Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 96. Commission not claimable under promise of a present. This was a claim for commission upon the introduction of a purchaser of some building land belonging to the defendant. Messrs. Protheroe and Morris were joined as defendants in the action. The plaintiff deposed that he called upon Messrs. Protheroe and Morris, and said that he believed that he could introduce a customer for Mr. Catleugh's property, 54 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION (ASKS. which was marked in the register at 8,000. The par- ticulars were given to him, and he introduced a Mr. Baile;% who entered into an agreement with Mr. Catleugh to buy the property. Mr. Catleuuh had promised him a commis- sion upon completion, and so had the clerk in the employ of Messrs. Protheroe and Morris who had carried out this particular business. In cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that he had already received a commission from Mr. Bailey. The defendant's case was that he had never promised a commission to the plaintiff, and a gentleman from the office of Messrs. Protheroe and Morris said that he super- intended the arrangements of that particular property, and saw the plaintiff when he came. The plaintiff asked, " What about my commission ? " Witness asked him what he wanted. The plaintiff said 50. Witness told him he could not think of it, but if the business came off all right he might have something given to him. The matter was always in the hands of Messrs. Protheroe and Morris, and they had always acted as Mr. Catleugh's agents. Their commission (70) had not yet been paid, because the matter was not considered as settled yet. Upon this evidence the jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Cooper Wyld and Mr. Brandon ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. E. Jones. Gearns v. Lake. Queen's Bench Division, 24 February, 1886. Before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 108. Instructions to sell only at a certain price. The plaintiff in this case was an auctioneer and house agent, and the defendant was said to be the freeholder of the " Bat and Ball," Wrotham Road, Gravesend, and also the mortgagee of the leasehold interest in that property. The action was to recover 36 Os. 6d. for commission and expenses in connection with the sale of the house. The defendant paid the expenses, 5 10s. 6d., into Court and disputed the plaintiff's claim for anything beyond that amount. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 55 It was stated that in June, 1885, the defendant was desirous of selling the " Bat and Ball," and through Mr. Coste, the proprietor of the Gravesend Distillery, he was introduced to the plaintiff on the 10th of that month. The case for the plaintiff was that he was upon that occasion instructed to sell by auction or by private contract ; and what was to be sold was a lease for 21 years at a rent of 10, the price being 700. The plaintiff at once advertised the house in the Mornimj Advertiser, and on the 14th or 15th of June Mr. Tilley offered to take it for 700 upon the terms that the brewers should advance 400, and that the applicant should be satisfied as to the inventory. In about ten days he withdrew from his offer, and on the 20th of June the defendant telegraphed to the plaintiff, "I think the house is sold." The house was actually sold by the defendant to a Mr. Wallis for 750. The plauitiff con- sidered that he was entitled to his commission upon the ground that he had really obtained an offer for the property on the terms upon which it was placed in his hands ; or that the sale to Mr. Wallis was really brought about by his advertisements. For the defence it was said that the plaintiff was never instructed to sell for 700, the price asked being 800, and that Mr. Wallis was in communication with the de- fendant before the plaintiff was seen at all, and had actually offered 700 -a sum which was refused. Subsequently his offer of 750 was accepted, but from beginning to end the whole transaction was begun and carried on quite apart from anything that the plaintiff had done. The verdict and judgment were for the defendant. Mr. Scarlett (instructed by Mr. R. Edridge) was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Lush (instructed by Messrs. Tucker and Lake) for the defendant. 56 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Agate v. Butcher. Tunbridge Wells County Court. 11 March, 1886. Before Mr. C. E. Lloyd, Deputy Judge. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 156. Negotiations broken off Separate and distinct transaction Com- mission not claimable. This was an action to recover the sum of 33 commission for disposing of a business at Tunbridge Wells, and damages for breach of agreement. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant, who was the occupier of the Duke of York Inn, Parade, Tunbridge Wells, had made arrange- ments for the disposal of his business, and the plaintiff was employed and introduced a Mr. E. W. Eedmond, who bought the business. Plaintiff therefore claimed his com- mission, 25. For the defendant it was contended that the house wag placed in the hands of several house agents, and the sale was ultimately effected for 1,812 through the agency of Messrs. Wickenden, licensed victuallers' auctioneers, Tunbridge Wells, \vlio received the commission. It was urged that the plaintiff's connection with either of the parties ended with a previous offer on the part of Mr. Eedmond which was not accepted. Evidence having been given by Mr. Butcher and Mr. Wickenden, his Honour, in giving judgment for the de- fendant, said the plaintiff was the person who introduced the purchaser, but the negotiations were broken off, and the purchase was completed by another person. Therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to his commission. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. A. H. Neve; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Cripps. Bacon v. Fielding. Lord Mayor's Court, 5 July, 1886. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 329. Commission recoverable where sale falls through owing to vendor's inability to make a title. The plaintiff, an estate agent, carrying on business at 25, Liverpool Street, London, sought to recover 16 2s. 6d. for commission at 2 per cent, on an agreed amount of COMPENDIUM OP COMMISSION CASES. 57 purchase-money. The correspondence showed that the defendant had instructed plaintiff to endeavour to sell for him certain houses of which he was the leaseholder, 11, 12 and 18, Moorfield Street, Borough. The plaintiff accepted the defendant s instructions, and gave him his terms, viz., 2^ per cent, commission for effecting sales ; no sale no charge. Defendant said the amount he required for the property was 700. He stated that the property was mortgaged, and mentioned the amount of the ground-rent, but gave no other particulars. The plaintiff made inquiries, and several letters passed, in which the plaintiff said he had an offer of 650. Defendant said he would not take less than 060. and a meeting subsequently took place between him and the proposed purchaser, Mrs. Hymore. at which the defendant agreed to accept 650. It afterwards appeared that the amount of ground-rent was one guinea more than he had stated, and Mrs. Hymore claimed a reduction, but agreed to give 645. On plain- tiff's advice, defendant consented to accept it. Plaintiff accordingly signed a contract for sale at that price, and Mrs. Hymore paid a deposit of 20. A few days after the contract was signed a letter was received from the Impartial Benefit Building Society informing the plaintiff that the property was mortgaged to them, that they had taken possession, of which the defendant had due notice, and that they were collecting the rents and refused to allow the property to be conveyed. Plaintiff had therefore to return to Mrs. Hymore the deposit of 20. On behalf of the defendant it was maintained that as there was "no sale" no commission was earned, but the learned judge dissented, observing that there was " no sale " by defendant's own fault. The defendant was called, and said he never agreed to accept less than 660, and never authorised the plaintiff to accept less, but he admitted having received the con- tract of sale for 645, and sending it on to the mortgagees, and the learned judge having expressed an opinion that no one would believe after that that the defendant did not agree to accept 645, the jury returned a verdict for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Morton Daniel. 58 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Taylor v. Lauzun. Queen's Bench Division, 14 July, 1886. Before Lord Justice Bowen. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 352. Authority to let admitted, but authority to sell disputed. This action was brought by Mr. E. F. Taylor, an auctioneer and surveyor, to recover commission earned as agent for the defendants, in obtaining for them a purchaser of a copyhold estate known as Walfield, Whetstone, Middlesex, for 3,500. The amount claimed was 82 10s., being at t he rate of 5 per cent, on the first 100 and 2^ per cent, on the residue, credit being given by the plaintiff for the commission he had received on effecting the letting to the party who aiterwards became the purchaser. The defence was that the defendants did not employ the plaintiff to sell the property, nor did he effect the sale. It was admitted that he had acted as their agent in the letting, that they did employ him to collect the rent, and that the plaintiff did on or about the 24th October, 1884, ask them whether they would be willing to sell the said property, to which they gave a qualified assent. The defendants did not give evidence, but simply contended that the plaintiff was not employed to sell the property, but Lord Justice Bowen, in delivering judgment, said that the plaintiff's evidence had not been shaken by cross- examination, and that he was of opinion that the plaintiff had been employed to sell the property. That being so, he was entitled to succeed in his action. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff accordingly, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. R. B. Finlay, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Pollock : counsel for the defendant : Mr. F. Lock- wood, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Cecil Chapman. Pinchbeck v. Wootton. Queen's Bench Division, 9 July, 1886. Before Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Grantham. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 352. Interpretation of agreement Disputed custom of the profession. The facts of this case were as follows: The plaintiff, an architect and surveyor, of Sutton, claimed 31 5s. r COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 59 1 commission at 2 per cent, on 1,250, the amount of purchase-money for a pair of freehold shops in Haddon Terrace, High Street, button. The defendant, in the year 1883, built four houses in Haddon Terrace, Sutton, Nos. 1, 2, 8, 4, and wrote to the plaintiff offering him 2 com- mission if he (plaintiff) could introduce a purchaser for them. The defendant, in March, 1884, sold the four houses to a customer who was introduced to him by a third party, to whom he paid commission. In the year 1885 the plaintiff sent a client down to purchase the said houses, Nos. 1 to 4. The client saw defendant, who in- formed him the houses, Nos. 1 to 4, had been sold, but he (defendant) had built two other houses, Nos. 5 and 6, which he wished to sell, and these the customer eventually purchased. The questions in the case were two, viz. : (1) What intrepretation ought to be put upon the agreement, and (2) Whether there was a custom that house agents who had been instructed to sell certain pro- perty, and sent down a customer who purchased other property, could charge commission on the sale thus effected. On both these questions the learned judge found against the defendant, and the High Court of Justice de- clined to interfere with hip decision. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Brown (instructed by Mr. Hird) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Kydd (instructed by Messrs. Jackson, Prince and Douglas). Barker and Neale v. Fermoy. Brompton County Court, 18 October, 1886. Before His Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 508. Instructing agent and then negotiating personally. This was an action brought by Messrs. Barker and Neale, estate agents, of Motcombe Street, Belgravia r against Lady Ferrnoy, to recover commission for introduc- ing Lady Colley as a tenant for Lady Fermoy's house, No. 2, Eccleston Houses, S.W., for the London season. The plaintiffs gave evidence that the defendant called at their office and gave them full particulars and instructions to place the house upon their books, and they wrote Lady Colley, sending her the particulars of the house. 60 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Subsequently the defendant again called at the plaintiffs' office, and said Lady Colley had inspected the house, and she requested Mr. Barker to go over it on the following morning (so that 'the plaintiffs might be in a better posi- tion to put it before applicants). This he did with the defendant, at the same time showing her a letter received that morning from Lady Colley, asking which of the houses in the same block as the deteudant's could be had at seven or eight guineas a week (the plaintiffs having given her particulars of two others). The defendant asked them to telegraph that hers was the most likely, and she asked to be allowed to negotiate directly with Lady Colley, as she had some knowledge of her, and gave as a reason for doing so that Lady Colley had some rooms in Hampton Court Palace which she had no right to let, but which, the defendant thought, she could make a private arrangement to take, in part exchange for her house, and this the plain- tiffs alleged was the sole reason that the negotiations were not carried out by them. The defence set up by the defendant was that she never gave the plaintiffs the particulars of the house nor in- structed them to find her a tenant ; she only told them she would let it to a Mrs. Eussell, whom she stated they mentioned to her as a likely tenant when she called at their office. She denied a great part of the evidence given by the plaintiffs ; and stated that she had never seen Mr. Neale one of the plaintiffs, who swore he took the particulars from her personally, as was shewn by an entry in the call book, which was made at the time ; and that she had only been in the plaintiffs' office once in her life, although further on in her evidence she alluded to the " first time" she called. She also said she had never taken Mr. Barker over the house, although he had sworn that she had personally taken him into nearly every room, and that she did not take Lady Colley's rooms in part exchange, although she admitted that she had been living there. The learned Judge ultimately gave judgment for the plaintiffs for 6, being 5 per cent, on 120, the amount of rent paid by the tenant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 61 Agate v. Walker. Tunbridge Wells County Court, 7 October, 1886. Before His Honour Judge Homersham Cox. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 508. Introducing a business Customary commission. This was a claim by the plaintiff, a business agent, for 10 commission, his case being that the defendant had agreed that, in consideration of the plaintiff introducing the defendant to a business, he would employ him in the valuation of transfer, or pay him his usual commission should he take the same at a lump sum. That agreement was signed by the defendant and duly stamped. After- wards the defendant went to the office of Mr. Day, an auctioneer, the use of which Mr. Agate had, and s?aw Mr. Agate, who knew of a business at Southborough, which was kept by a Mr. Barrett, a dairyman. That business was not in the hands of Mr. Agate to let, but he knew that the business was in the market. Defendant and Mr. Agate went to Southborough to see about, the business, but no final arrangement was come to. The defendant again called at Mr. Agate's office, but the latter was not in, and a clerk who was there went with him to Southborough,. and told Barrett that he was willing to take the business, but the latter declined to sign anything. It subsequently, however, came to the plaintiff's knowledge that the de- fendant had purchased Mr. Barrett's business, and was in possession of it now. Mr. Agate, therefore, was entitled to the sum which he claimed, because he had introduced the defendant to the business which he had purchased. The defence was that no business was transacted with Agate. Although the plaintiff told Mr. Barrett that he had a customer he knew that he had not, and when he had obtained particulars of the business he forthwith issued advertisements in the name of Messrs. Day and Co. to- entrap Mr. Walker as a buyer, and the defendant swore that when he saw the plaintiff at Mr. Day's office he told him to sign a certain piece of paper and then they would go to Southborough. He could not say what, writing was on the paper, which afterwards proved to be an agreement, neither did the plaintiff say anything to him ab >ut a com- mission. In consequence of something he had been told he decided to have nothing to do with the plaintiff. 62 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Evidence having been given that the usual commission was 5 per cent, up to 200, judgment was given for the plaintiff for 6 (the business having been sold for 120) on the ground that the defendant had purchased the business in consequence of information he received from the plaintiff. Mr. Cripps appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Burton for the defendant. Durant v. Steel. Lord Mayor's Court, 27 October, 1886. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 520. No agreement in writing Onus of proof on the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff was that he, as a solicitor in the City, was consulted with respect to finding a purchaser for an estate known as Sheephouse Farm, Maidenhead. It appeared that the defendant, who carries on business in Gracechurch Street, had purchased the estate as an in- vestment for 9,000, and in 1884 he was desirous of selling at a profit. The plaintiff found a buyer who was willing to pay 12,100. That sum, however, was not sufficient, and eventually the offer was increased to 12,500. At that figure the estate was sold to the same gentleman who offered the smaller amount, and the plaintiff's contention was that he was to be paid 500 as commission for the introduction. It was admitted on both sides that there was no agreement to that effect in writing, and there was a considerable conflict of testimony on the point, the defendant insisting that any commission due to the plaintiff was not to be paid by him, but was to come out of the pockets of other persons interested in the transaction. After a lengthened hearing the jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., and Mr. Palmer; counsel for the defendant: Mr. Cock, Q.C., Mr. McCall and Mr. Horton. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 63 Thompson and Co. v. Wyatt. Exeter County Court, 18 November, 1886. Before His Honour Judge Giffard. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 568. Principals dealing directly Auctioneer not effective cause of sale. The plaintiffs, who were auctioneers at Exeter, sued the defendant for the sum of 7 4s. commission at the rate of 2 per cent., alleged to be due on the sale of certain houses belonging to Mr. Wyatt, who resides at Haldon View, Blackboy Road, Exeter, the purchase-money being 360. The plaintiff stated that an arrangement between him and Mr. Wyatt was made that if the property was sold through the instrumentality of liis (plaintiff's) firm, they should have the usual commission. He afterwards saw Mr. Wyatt, and told him that a Mr. William Taylor was a likely purchaser of the property. A private sale was ultimately effected, Mr. Taylor being the purchaser, and the claim was for the usual commission paid on such transactions. The defence was that the transaction was between Mr. Wyatt and Mr. Taylor directly, and that as Mr. Thompson was not instrumental in the sale he was not entitled to commission. The learned judge in giving judgment said it was rather a hard case for the plaintiffs. It was clear that if a house was sold through the intervention of a house agent, the latter was entitled to a commission. In this case there seemed to have been negotiations going on for a long time between the owner and purchaser of the house. A letter, it appeared, had been written by the auctioneer to Mr. Taylor on the subject of the house, which must have revived his wish to purchase it, but he did not think that it could be regarded as a sale effected by the intervention of the plaintiffs, although it ran very close to the wind. Judgment would be for the defendant, but under the circumstances there would be no order as to costs. 64 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Hurrell v. Sims and Sons. City of London Court, 27 November,1886. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 581. Introducing a tenant for a public-house He must be a fit person to hold a licence. The plaintiff, Mr. William Hurrell, trading as Haynes and Co., of 65, Knightrider Street, claimed J63 8s. for Jetting a public-house for the defendants, Messrs. W. Sims and Sons, Reading, and his case was that he received a letter from the defendants asking him to sell their premises in Reading, and that he secured a purchaser named Wilcox, who took the place. The defendant, however, alleged that the man Wilcox was not allowed to have the traiihfer of the house, and that he had to pay him a large sum of money to get him out. The magistrates would not allow him to stay. The learned judge, after hearing the evidence, observed that in a case of this kind it was no use sending a man whom the magistrates will not admit. Supposing a com- mission were paid in this case, this same man might be sent to all the vacant public-houses in the City, and in each case a commission would have to be paid. " He pets into this particular house," added the judge, " and con- ducts himself in such a way that he is immediately turned out. That is not getting the defendants a tenant. The magistrates would not license him. I hold that to entitle you to a commission you must introduce a man who is acceptable as a tenant, or otherwise you do not find a tenant for which you seek to recover payment." Judgment for the defendants. Rogers and Co. v. Hampden. Brompton County Court, 14 December, 1886. Before his Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 608. Commission due when principal declines to complete indue course. In this case Messrs. Rogers, Cha| man and Thomas, auctioneers and estate agents, of 78, Gloucester Road, South Kensinyton, sued the Hon. Captain Hobart Hami'dt-n, of No. 12, Hereford Square, for commission on letting his furnished house. The plaintiffs proved that COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 65 the house was let by them in October, 1885, to a Mr. Murray-Honey, and possession was to be given on the 2nd November following, an agreement to that effect being duly executed. A few days before the date fixed for giving possession the defendant gave plaintiffs notice that, for certain family reasons, he could not give possession on the day agreed upon, and in consequence of this the proposed tenant made other arrangements, and consequently the agreement was not carried out. The plaintiffs maintained that they had let the house and so earned their com- mission, but the defendant on the other hand considered the transaction was not fully completed, and that there- fore the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim. His Honour Judge Stonor, in giving judgment for the plaintiffs, said that undoubtedly they had let the house, and were therefore entitled to their commission. A proper agreement having been executed, the defendant had his remedy in an action for specific performance if it was not carried out through any default on the tenant's part, which in this instance was not the case, as Captain Hampden himself was the party withdrawing from the contract. Wilkins v. Boxall. Lord Mayor's Court, 14 December, 1887. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 3. Commission alleged to be payable by instalments. The plaintiff, Mr. Frederick Wilkins, civil and mining engineer, of Horsham, sought to recover 144 commission for introducing to the defendant, Mr. Allen Boxall, who was the owner of considerable property in Sussex, a pur- chaser for an estate which belonged to him. It appeared that some time before June 7, 1886, the defendant possessed an estate in the parish of Cowfield, called " Swains," and he was anxious to sell it. It con- sisted of 138 acres of land, and he wanted 40 per acre for it. The defendant gave the plaintiff a memorandum to the effect that it was understood between them that if 6 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the plaintiff effected a sale of " Swains " at the price men- tioned, he was to be entitled to a commission of 2 per cent, on the purchase-money. A time was stated, and in May, 1886, a Mr. Maloney was introduced to the defen- dant as a man willing to purchase the land for 5,760. The defendant required references as to his position before he entered into the engagement, and these were forthcoming from his bankers and others. The plaintiff went into the witness box to support his case and was cross-examined, and denied, amongst other things, that the money was to be paid by instalments of 60 down, and the remainder when the whole transaction was com- pleted. For the defence this was asserted, and it was shown that a second agreement was come to by which the first, for which the plaintiff had had to pay the penalty, was abandoned. The jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Crispe ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Wildey Wright. Inman v. Warp. Marylebone County Court. Before His Honour Judge Stonor and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 46. Custom of the trade Auctioneers can charge commission where the property has not been put up, but withdrawn by the vendor. The plaintiff in this case was Mr. W. N. Inman, of 126, Maida Vale, auctioneer and surveyor, and the defendant was a builder, of No. 2, Hampden Street, Harrow Koad. The claim was for 29 5s., commission earned and money paid out of pocket by the plaintiff on the sale of premises in Marlborough Street, Harrow Eoad. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant instructed him to include the houses in his next sale by auction, on the 18th August, 1888, and agreed to pay the usual com- mission if sold, but only out-of-pocket expenses if not sold. The property was duly advertised for sale on the 18th, but on the 17th August the defendant informed plaintiff that he had sold the property privately. Plaintiff then sent in his account, charging commission and money out COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 67 of pocket, whereupon defendant complained, contending that he was only liable for the payments out of pocket, the amount of which he paid into Court. Witnesses were called to prove these facts, and that there was a custom among auctioneers that commission was chargeable whether the property was sold at the auction or not, but the defendant's case was that it was agreed between the plaintiff and himself that if the property was sold prior to the auction, the plaintiff was only to be entitled to expenses out of pocket. The learned judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to commission unless the defendant knew of the alleged custom, and left it to the jury to say, firstly, whether such an agreement as alleged by the defendant was come to ; secondly, if no such agreement existed, what amount plaintiff was entitled to for remuneration beyond the money paid into Court for expenses ; thirdly, was there a custom in the profession by which auctioneers charged their commission if the property was sold pri- vately or withdrawn, and, if so, was such custom known to the defendant. The jury found that there was no such agreement as alleged by defendant, and that there was such a custom as stated by the plaintiff, but that such custom was not known to the defendant, and they awarded the plaintiff the sum of 12 as remuneration, in addition to the 10 17s. 6d. paid into court. Mr. E. Tolland (instructed by Mr. Scaife) appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Pain was solicitor for the defendant. Jolly v. Sharp. Lord Mayor's Court, 9 February, 1888. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxix., p. 77. Subsequent private purchase by party present at auction Commission recoverable. This was an action brought by Messrs. Frank Jolly and Co., auctioneers, of Leadenhall Street, against Mr. John Sharp, licensed victualler, of Walthamstow, for commission P2 68 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. on the sale of three freehold houses in Field Road, Forest Gate, which were submitted to auction in March, 1887, by the plaintiffs, but were bought in at the reserved price and were sold shortly afterwards by the defendant to a gentleman who, it was not disputed, was present in the auction room at the time of sale. It appeared that the defendant at first instructed the plaintiffs to sell the property by private treaty, and they thereupon placed the particulars upon their books and in their printed register published monthly. A large number of orders to view were given, but nothing resulted in con- sequence of the high price asked. After some time the defendant instructed the plaintiffs to include the property in their May sale at the Auction Mart. This was done, but the reserved price not being reached, the property was declared to be bought in. After the sale, negotiations, were continued with a view to effect a sale by private treaty, but on June 6th defendant wrote saying the houses were sold. Inquiries were instituted by the plaintiffs, and it was then found that the purchaser had attended the auction sale, whereupon the plaintiffs sent in their account for commission and out-of-pocket expenses. The defence was that the sale resulted through the in- strumentality of a Mr. Nelson, a coffee-house keeper, who was a neighbour of the purchaser, and the latter stated in evidence that Nelson told him two days before the sale that the houses were going up at the Mart. He thereupon went down and inspected them and saw the plaintiffs' bills on the property. In reply to a question by the learned judge, Mr. Jolly stated that the property had been adver- tised freely for nearly three weeks, and his lordship pointed out to the jury that therefore the matter was at this time public property, and that the fact of one person telling another of it, who afterwards became the purchaser, would not prejudice the claim of the auctioneer. A letter was read from the defendant to the plaintinV solicitor, in answer to a request for payment, promising to settle the account upon the completion of the purchase, and asking for proceedings to be stayed. This was agreed to, but the completion took place and the defendant then refused to- pay. Defendant's counsel stated that the letter only referred to the out-of-pocket expenses, which were paid COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 69 into Court, but the learned judge pointed out that this could not be, as the account plaintiffs had rendered was referred to in the letter, and after he had summed up, the jury, without retiring, found for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed for commission and out-of-pocket ex- penses (27 15s.), and judgment was entered accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Wildey Wright ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Moyses. Joliffe v. Roy. Dorset Assizes, 13 February, 1888. Before Mr. Justice Field. Reported .ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 89. Indirect introduction of purchaser, but purchase completed directly. This was an action brought by a firm of house agents at Bournemouth, to recover 80, said to be due to them as commission on the sale by them of a house belonging to the defendant in Christchurch Koad, Bournemouth. In November, 1885, one of the plaintiffs obtained par- ticulars of the house from the defendant, whom he saw. Subsequently the plaintiffs recommended the defendant's house to a Miss Good, who was looking out for a house, and who viewed several. The plaintiffs introduced Miss Good to some builders named Jenkins, who they said would see to some repairs which she talked of doing in one of the houses, should she eventually take it. The question was, whether the plaintiffs or the firm of Jenkins had actually been the means of Miss Good's becoming, as she ultimately did become, the purchaser of the house, though she concluded the purchase direct with the defendant. A vast amount of correspondence was read. The plaintiffs were called as witnesses, and detailed the circumstances under which they had acted, and stated that they made this claim directly they heard that the house had been sold. For the defendant, Miss Good was called, and said she had known that the house was for sale a month before she first saw the plaintiffs, and that she had not been to them in reference to this house, but that she heard of the price of the house from Jenkins, and then wrote to the defendant, 70 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. with whom all subsequent correspondence about the house took place. The learned judge, after alluding to the importance of the letters which had been put in, said he thought the plain- tiffs had made out their case and were entitled to the com- mission. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiffs for 80 (the amount of the agreed commission) with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : the Hon. B. Coleridge, M.P. ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. J. A. Foote. Day and Co. v. Harris. Maidstone County Court, 21 February, 1888. Before His Honour Judge Homersham Cox. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 106. Alternative claim Commission or damages Measure of damages amount of commission due. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Day and Co., auctioneers and valuers, of Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, and they sued defendant, lately tenant of the " Bear " Hotel, West Mailing, for commission due to them for acting as agent in introducing to her a purchaser for the hotel, or, in the alternative, damages for breach of agreement to the extent of 20, the equivalent of the commission. Messrs. Day and Co. having heard that the " Bear " Hotel was in the market, Mr. Elder, one of the firm, ac- companied by Mr. Eichardson, a clerk, went to the hotel and saw Mrs. Harris. They ascertained from her that she wanted to leave the hotel in consequence of her husband's death, and Mr. Elder then said it was possible they would get her a purchaser, and if they did, might they expect to act as agents for her ? Defendant said that other agents had previously acted in reference to the hotel, but if they found a purchaser they might act for her, and showed them over the hotel. Plaintiffs accordingly took the usual steps to obtain a purchaser, and advertised the hotel in several papers, and on the 21st September, 1887, Mr. H.F. Selden, who said he had seen the plaintiffs' advertisement, wrote asking for particulars. Plaintiffs sent Mr. Selden parti- culars, and the latter then wrote asking if the brewer COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 71 would lend about 150, the ingoing being estimated at 800, and lie only being prepared with 650. Plaintiffs replied that they thought they would be able to arrange this, and invited Mr. Selden to see the hotel. He in- spected it in company with Mr. Elder, but a week after- wards he wrote to plaintiffs declining to take the house* After that Mrs. Harris herself entered into negotiation with Mr. Selden, and within a fortnight he took posses- sion, and was still carrying on the business. Mr. Elder saw defendant and reminded her of her agreement, but she said that Mr. Selden did not purchase the house through them, and therefore she did not intend to pay plaintiffs any commission. Mr. Selden gave evidence to the effect that he was tenant of the " Bear " Hotel. He heard of it first through an advertisement, and it was through that advertisement that he made inquiries about the house. About a fortnight after he had written to plaintiffs to say that he declined to take the house, he saw another advertisement respecting a country hotel, to be let by Mr. J. Hart Bridges, of Blooms- bury Square, London. That turned out to be the same house. In cross-examination the witness said that the cause of his breaking off with plaintiffs was their failure to borrow the money. After hearing further evidence the learned judge said that there must be judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs. It was by the plaintiffs' exertions and their advertisements that the purchaser was introduced. Mr. Cripps appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. W. S. Norton for the defendant. Wright v. Hales. Kingston County Court, 9 March, 1888. Before His Honour Judge Lushington. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 138. First information of vacant business. The plaintiff, an auctioneer and public-house broker, of Kingston and Esher, claimed 12 10s. commission for having introduced the defendant to the owners of the 72 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. " Black Horse" public house, Norbiton, his case being that the defendant had called upon him and asked him to introduce him to a business. Plaintiff negotiated for that purpose, and in one instance made an offer of 500, which was refused. Eventually Mr. Pugh, the managing director of the Kingston Brewery Company, told plaintiff that they meant to get rid of the then tenant of the " Black Horse," with which information plaintiff lost no time in acquaint- ing the defendant. The latter's contention, however, was that plaintiff was only in a position at that time to say the house was likely to become vacant, and that he (defen- dant) knew of this likelihood from the newspapers, inde- pendently of the information conveyed to him by the plaintiff. He found subsequently that Messrs. Abrahams and Sons had introduced someone else to the company at a premium, in consequence of which he went to Messrs. Abrahams and arranged with them for the transfer of the business. The plaintiff claimed the commission for having first mentioned the business to the defendant. The learned judge, in giving judgment for the plaintiff, said it was perfectly clear that Mr. Wright gave defendant valuable information, and defendant was not to escape the commission by acting a mean part in employing someone else to complete the transaction when the most critical proceedings were managed by plaintiff. The matter was clearly in the hands of the company, from whom Mr. Wright received the information upon which the defendant acted. His Honour added that evidence as to the custom of the profession was not necessary, as he was satisfied with the case for the plaintiff as it stood. Mr. Sherrard appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Young for the defendant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 73 Giddy and Turner v. Harper. Guildford County Court, 22 March, 1888. Before His Honour Judge Lushington. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 169. Customary commission on assignment of lease. In this case Messrs. Giddy and Turner sued Mrs. Harper for the sum of 15 17s. 6d., being commission on letting a house at Hambledon. It appeared that the defendant held the house on lease for an unexpired term of nine years, at a rental of 45 per annum, and instructed the plaintiffs to find her a tenant, and to obtain a premium for her lease and improvements of 350. The plaintiffs considered the premium asked was too high, and after some little time the defendant said she would reduce it to 250. The plaintiffs issued a hundred orders to view, and eventually introduced a gentleman, who agreed to take the house and to pay this latter sum. In due course plaintiffs sent in their account for the usual commission on assignment of lease viz., 1\ per cent, on one year's rental and 5 per cent, on the premium. It was also stated that the plaintiffs had brought their terms to the knowledge of the defendant, and that she had signed one of their ordinary forms. The chief point raised by the defendant was that she had not let the premises nor had she assigned her lease, and that the transaction was a sale and not a letting, but Mr. Turner, in his evidence, explained that the defendant got the superior landlord to cancel her lease and grant a fresh one to her nominee, but that she (the defendant) had re- ceived the 250 premium. Two well-known agents were in attendance to prove plaintiffs' charges were customary, but it was not thought necessary to call them. The learned judge held that the premium was practi- cally increased rent, and that the cancelling of the lease and the granting of a fresh one by the superior landlord was, as far as the plaintiffs were concerned, the same as an assignment, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Mr. Duke appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Davis for the defendant. 74 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Hartley v. Smith and Son. Halifax County Court, 2 May, 1888. Before His Honour Judge Snagge. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 270. Commission for selling a quarry, or finding a partner with capital Alleged friendly transaction. The plaintiff in this action was Samuel Hartley, stone merchant, Lightcliffe, and the defendants were Henry Smith and Sons, stone merchants and quarry owners, Hill Top, Lightcliffe. The plaintiff had been consulted by the defendants about disposing of their quarry, or finding a partner with capital. An advertisement was drawn up by plaintiff and the elder defendant, and inserted in the local papers, but nothing came of it. Plaintiff was then requested by defendants to write to various firms he was acquainted with, for the purpose of obtaining a purchaser. Defendants promised that if the quarry was sold at the price they wanted, viz., 3,000, they would give plaintiff 100 commission. Plain- tiff paid two visits to London and one to Lancashire, and entered into correspondence with several parties, but with- out success. Ultimately, however, he introduced Messrs. Wlritaker and Son, of Horsforth.near Leeds, to the defen- dants, and Messrs. Whitaker became the purchasers of the quarry for 2,250. Plaintiff now sued for commission upon the price realised by the sale at the rate agreed upon. On the part of the defendant it was denied that there had been any agreement between the parties as to commission. Plaintiff and defendants had been on very friendly terms for many years, and what plaintiff had done was done out of friendship. Defendants admitted that on one occasion they told plaintiff that if the quarry sold for 3,000 they would give him 30 or 40 ; but he was also told that if it did not realise that, they could not afford to give him any- thing. The learned judge said it was not denied that plaintiff had acted for defendants in this matter, and whilst it was no doubt true that friendship did exist between them, yet people did not go about the country at their own expense doing work of this kind for friendship simply. In this case there were three witnesses on one side to one on the other ; COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 75 but as the three defendants were all interested in the result, it was not a question of counting heads. He would regard the three defendants as one, and therefore it was oath against oath, and that being so, he. thought the probabili- ties were in favour of the plaintiff's story. He held that plaintiff, who introduced the purchaser to defendants, was entitled to be paid commission at the rate he would have been paid had the 3,000 been realised. He was sorry plaintiff could not have the full amount to which he was entitled by that verdict, owing to the law having limited the jurisdiction of the County Courts to sums of not more than 50. He could therefore only give him 50 ; but he would certainly have given him 75 had he had the power to do so. Verdict for plaintiff for 50 and costs. Mr. Boocock appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Storey for the defendants. Peacock and another v. Freeman and another. Supreme Court of Judicature, Court of Appeal, 12 May, 1888. Before the Master of the Bolls, Lord Justice Lindley. and Lord Justice Bowen. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, vol. xxxi., p. 287. Auctioneers not entitled to commission where a sale is rescinded owing to vendor failing to comply with requisitions as to title. The defendants in this case were auctioneers, carrying on business under the name of Aldridge's, in St. Martin's Lane. The plaintiffs were a firm of solicitors who were acting for the mortgagees of a certain property known as the Adam and Eve Yard, High Street, Kensington. In October, 1886, the plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the mort- gagees, were desirous of putting the property up for sale. Accordingly, upon October 19, 1886, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants : " We are desirous of instructing you to sell this property. Will you let us know what will be your commission if the property is sold and if bought in ?" On October 21, 1886, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs in reply, saying that their commission would be 5 percent, upon the first 10,000, and 2 per cent, upon the remain- der, the letter concluding thus : " Should the property 70 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. not be sold, we shall charge an auction fee of 80 guineas and the cost out-of-pocket for printing and advertising." Upon October 26 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants: " In reference to your commission, we are advised that a scale of If percent, upon the first 10,000 and 1 per cent, upon the residue, plus the out-of-pocket expenses, could be substantiated if attacked, and this amount we are prepared to assent to." Upon October 29 the defendants wrote ac- cepting those terms. The property was accordingly put up for sale by auction upon November 23, 1886, and was knocked down to a Mr. Hetherington, a substantial pur- chaser, for 16,500, who paid the usual deposit to the auc- tioneers. Subsequently, however, Mr. Hetherington made some requisitions as to the title of the vendors which they were unwilling or unable to comply with, and thereupon, in accordance with the conditions, rescinded the contract of sale and repaid the deposit to Mr. Hetherington. The plaintiffs, as their solicitors, then demanded from the de- fendants the repayment of the deposit which had been lodged in their hands, but the latter claimed to retain out of it the amount of their commission on the sale of the property. The plaintiffs on the other hand insisted that they were only entitled to 30 guineas, and brought the present action to recover 208 10s., the difference between the two sums. Mr. Justice Mathew had found in their favour at the trial, and the Court of Appeal, without calling on the plaintiffs' counsel, now affirmed his decision. The two arguments urged on behalf of the auctioneers were, first, that the property should be considered to have been sold directly it had been knocked down to a solvent purchaser, and, secondly, that the plaintiffs had rescinded the contract either from inability or unwillingness to complete, the defendants in either case being entitled on a quantum meruit to an equivalent to the commission in the shape of damages for having been prevented from earning it. On the first of these points the Court asked the ques- tion, " What is the common sense construction of the phrase ' if the property is sold ' ? Clearly it means if the sale is completed and the whole of the purchase- money paid over. The sale here was abortive." " To suppose," observed Lord Justice Lindley. "that the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 77 vendors intended to take upon themselves the obligation to pay a large sum for commission whether the property was sold or not, seems to me perfectly incredible." With regard to the second question it was held that the defen- dants could only be entitled to damages on a quantum meruit if the plaintiffs had not only rescinded the sale r but rescinded it wrongfully. But they had only acted in strict accordance with the terms of the conditions of sale, and, as a matter of fact, it was really not they, but Mr. Hetherington, who had refused to complete, a course he was perfectly justified in taking, and one which the diffi- culties placed by the present state of the law of real pro- perty in this country in the way of '' making a title " often forces upon a would-be purchaser, or his advisers. Taking this view, the Court of Appeal was clear in the opinion that the well-known authority of Prickett v. Badger was applicable to the case under consideration. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. E. S. Wright and Mr, Asquith ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. W. Willis, Q.C., and Mr. Lee Roberts. Dunn and Soman v. Arnold. Tunbridge Wells County Court, 7 June, 1888. Before His Honour Judge Homersham Cox. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 353. Customary commission on letting a dairy farm and selling stock. This was a claim for 25 3s. 6d., commission on letting the Spa Dairy Farm, Tunbridge Wells, and on the sale of stock, the plaintiffs being agents and auctioneers of Tun- bridge Wells, London, and Horsham, and the defendant a farmer and stock dealer. The plaintiffs' claim was made up as follows : 1\ per cent, on one year's rent, 109, being a letting on lease, 15 per cent, on 340, the price paid for entry, all the effects having been taken at a lump sum. Evidence was given by Mr. Soman as to his instruc- tions and the subsequent introduction of a tenant, a Mr. Nash. A register of farms, in which the terms of the firm were printed, was put in, and the scale of charges was 78 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. confirmed by other local professional men. For the defence it was urged that the defendants had only em- ployed the plaintiffs to find a tenant, and that they were only entitled to their commission for so doing ; further, that the defendant had put his own price on the effects, thereby saving the expense of a valuation. It transpired, however, that 100 or thereabouts of the price was for goodwill and premium. The defendant also stated that the letting was not on a lease, and that 120 worth of stock was not on the farm at the time of the letting, but imported from Jersey. His Honour, in giving judgment, stated the wording of the scale of charges in the register was very distinct viz., that besides the commission for letting when the stock is taken at a fixed price, as in this instance, a commission of 5 per cent, is payable. The charges might be high, but auctioneers were so often " done out of their commis- sion " that he supposed they were compelled to make them so. He should give judgment for 16 9s., being 5 per cent, on one year's rent, as the letting was not on lease, and 5 per cent, on 220, the amount for the good- will and stock actually on the farm. Mr. R. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. Burton for the defendant. Barnett v. Isaacson. Supreme Court of Judicature, Court of Appeal, 28 June, 1888. Before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lindley, and Lord Justice Lopes. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi.,pp. 248,,353, and 384. Alternative claim on an agreement for commission, or on a quantum meruit A party introduced to a vendor must be introduced in the capacity of purcJiaser, or commission cannot be claimed. This was an action to recover 5,000 commission from the defendant on the sale of the business of Madame Elise, in Regent Street. The plaintiffs claim was based upon a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff in May, 1880 : "In the event of your introducing to me a purchaser of the business, I undertake to pay you a commis- sion of 5,000." The plaintiff subsequently, in December, COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 79 1880, introduced Mr. Chatteris, as representing the firm of Messrs. Chatteris, Nichols and Co., accountants, to find a purchaser, and the defendant gave him an under- taking to pay a commission of 5, 000 if he found a pur- chaser. Mr. Chatteris some time afterwards, having in the meantime been employed to audit the accounts of the business, negotiated with the defendant to purchase the business himself. A correspondence ensued between the plaintiff and the defendant as to some remuneration being paid to the plaintiff in the event of Chatteris finding a pur- chaser, and certain sums were mentioned on both sides, but nothing was settled. Eventually, in January, 1884, Chatteris purchased the business, deducting from the pur- chase money the 5,000 commission. The plaintiff then, after some further correspondence, brought this action to recover the 5,000 commission, alleging that he had intro- duced Mr. Chatteris, the purchaser. The action was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, when the jury found for the plaintiff for 2,000 upon & quantum meruit for his work and trouble in the matter. The Lord Chief Justice left either party to move the Court for judgment. The plaintiff accordingly moved for judgment for 5,000, or, in the alternative, for 2,000, and the defendant also moved for judgment. The Divisional Court, consisting of Mr. Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice Charles, held that under the commission note of May, 1880, the plaintiff was not entitled to the 5,000, as Chatteris was not introduced by the plaintiff as a pur- chaser ; and ordered a new trial upon the question of the quantum meruit. The plaintiff and defendant both appealed from this judgment, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff, and entered judgment for the defendant. The Master of the Rolls said that the claim as to the 5,000 depended upon the true construction of the letter of May, 1880, which contained the terms of the con- tract. The letter must be read in its ordinary meaning, having regard to the subject matter with which it dealt. Read in that way, the true meaning was that, in the event of the plaintiff introducing a purchaser of the business, he was to be paid 5,000. The person introduced must become a purchaser through the plaintiff's introduction. 80 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. The question was, did the plaintiff introduce a parson so that by that introduction he had brought about the rela- tion of vendor and purchaser ? There was also a further meaning contained in the letter, that if the plaintiff failed to produce that result he was not to be paid anything. He was only to be paid in case of success, no matter what labour and trouble he had devoted to the matter, and that was probably the reason why the commission was so high. The facts here showed that the plaintiff failed to find a purchaser, and so he found another person, an accountant, who might be able to effect what he had failed to do. It was most unlikely that Mr. Chatteris, the accountant, would become a purchaser, and the plaintiff never dreamt when he introduced him that he would become a purchaser. What had happened between the plaintiff and Chatteris, whether the plaintiff had made any claim against Chatteris, did not appear. Having introduced Chatteris, the plain- tiff seemed to have done nothing more. Therefore the plaintiff did not introduce Chatteris and thereby bring about the relation of vendor and purchaser, and there was no evidence to go to the jury upon that claim. The Lord Chief Justice, in order to avoid a new trial if possible, though with very great doubt, left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was entitled to anything upon a quantum meruit for his services. The Lord Chief Justice's real opinion seemed to be against leaving that to the j ury , and his lordship agreed with him. It was impossible to leave it to the jury, as it would be contrary to the terms of the contract. All that the plaintiff did under the con- tract was done upon the terms that he was not to be paid unless he was successful. The jury gave him 2,000, though he had failed, and so the verdict could not stand. Then it was urged that though the plaintiff was not en- titled to be paid for anything done under the original con- tract, yet he was entitled to something for services ren- dered in introducing Chatteris to the defendant. That contention was not urged at the trial, and, indeed, seemed to have been started here. In his opinion there was no evidence to jusiify a jury in finding for the plaintiff upon this point. It was not said that there was any request by the defendant to the plaintiff to introduce Chatteris to him. It was, however, said that the plaintiff introduced COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 81 Chatteris to the defendant, and the defendant accepted that introduction, and must pay for that service. To entitle a plaintiff to sue upon a quantum meruit the rule was that if the plaintiff relied upon the acceptance by the defendant of something he had done, he must have done it under circumstances which led the defendant to know that if he, the defendant, accepted what had been done, it was on the terms that he must pay for it. The acceptance of the introduction here did not take place under such circumstances that the defendant must pay for it. Neither party ever thought that it was to be paid for. If pay- ment was to have been made for it, it would be due imme- diately after the introduction, but the plaintiff never claimed it for six years, and it never was claimed until it was suggested by counsel during the argument of the case. There was, therefore, no evidence at all to go to the jury. There must be no new trial, and judgment must be entered for the defendant with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Morten ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Finlay, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. English Harrison. Wrightson v. Overton. Lord Mayor's Court, 18 July, 1888. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 37. Commission on introduction of purcJiaser of building land. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. F. B. Wrightson, a solicitor in the City, sued the defendant to recover 56, commission on the introduction of a purchaser for some building land at Queen's Gate, Hyde Park, Kensington. The facts of the case were that the defendant had a plot of land at Queen's Gate, upon which he was desirous of erecting large mansions in residential flats, but having no capital, he applied to the plaintiff to introduce him to someone with the necessary funds. This the plaintiff did, introducing him to a Mr. Walker, who again introduced him to a Mr. Stair, who was the agent in this country to Mr. Oppenheimer, the English consul at Frankfort, and who entered into an arrangement for buying the freehold 2 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. of the land, then granting the defendant a building lease, and making advances as the building progressed. Origi- nally the plaintiff and Mr. Walker and Mr. Stair were to have 900 commission between them, but that was subsequently reduced to 850. Upon the plaintiff ascer- taining that Mr. Oppenheimer had entered into an agree- ment with Mr. Overton, the defendant, and had advanced him moneys, the plaintiff brought this action. Evidence was given that Mr. Oppenheimer had advanced to the defendant three separate sums of 1,000, but as only one of them was advanced before the date of the present action, commission on that one only could now be claimed, amounting to 28. The defence was that the plaintiff had verbally agreed to accept 100 in full satisfaction of all claims for com- mission, and that as the defendant had really received no profit out of the introduction, the plaintiff was not entitled to anything. The jury found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Scarlett; counsel for the defendant: Mr. E. J. Davis. Willats and Charlton v. Parsons. Queen's Bench Division, 18 July, 1888. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 37. Claim for commission on the negotiation of a loan on a reversion. In this case the plaintiffs were Messrs. Willats and Charlton, estate agents and valuers, of Holborn, and they sought to recover 350 commission from Messrs. W. W. and H. T. Parsons, in respect of the negotiation of a loan of 10,000 upon the reversionary interest of defendants, under the will of the late Mr. John Parsons. It appeared that the defendants had purchased a brewery at St. Mary Church, Devon, for 22,000, paying 12,000 and leaving the remainder upon mortgage. In order to pay off the 10,000 and other payments they communicated with plaintiffs, who obtained an offer of a loan of 10,000, in regard to which they now claimed commission. The COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 8 defendant's case was, however, that the offer of 10,000 was accepted conditionally upon a further sum of 6,000 being obtained, 16,000 being the amount that was required, and as this was not done the matter fell through. The defendants claimed damages on the ground that through the plaintiffs' failure to get the loan they were driven to a forced sale of the brewery, and suffered loss ; but in the result the learned judge non-suited the plaintiffs in regard to their claim, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs on the counter-claim. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Crump, Q.C., and Mr. Mirams ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Lewis. Butcher v. Breem. Dorking County Court, 25 July, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 67. Commission on the sale of a brewery Evidence, of customary cluirgc. In this case, Mr. Edward Butcher, auctioneer and valuer, of High Street, Dorking, sued Mr. Wallace Breem, formerly proprietor of the Red Lion Brewery, for 37 10s., amount of commission at 2 per cent, on 1,500 recsived by the defendant for the disposal of his brewery to Messrs. Lascelles and Tickner, brewers, of Guildford, whom the plaintiff introduced in his professional capacity to the defendant. The defendant alleged that no promise of a commission had been held out, and he had intimated to the plaintiff that no heavy price would be paid, but that he would receive 5 or 10 as a gratuity if the sale was effected ; but the plaintiff emphatically denied that Mr. Breem ever mentioned that he would give him a gratuity instead of a commission, or that he received a retainer from Messrs. Lascelles and Tickner to act on their behalf. Evidence having been given on behalf of the plaintiff, it was urged for the defendant that whilst plaintiff was charging defendant for commission on the valuation of the stock and book debts, &c., he was also receiving eight guineas from Messrs. Lascelles and Tickner for the same G2 84 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. work, and it was only this coming to their knowledge that induced the plaintiff to reduce his claim for the sum now sued for. The "gratuity" theory was also put forward, but the learned judge having summed up, the jury, after a short consideration, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 20 guineas. Mr. Scott appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. J. Chaldecott for the defendant. Pothonier v. Seckham and another. Queen's Bench Division, 14 June, 1888. Before Mr. Baron Pollock and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxi., p. 384, and Vol. xxxii., pp. 51, 84. An agent may claim commission from a principal, or in the alternative from the agent of that principal. This was an action for breach of contract to recover 2,500 commission upon the sale of a brewery. The plaintiff was a merchant carrying on business in Leadenhall Buildings, and Mr. Seckham the proprietor of a brewery at Northampton, and the other defendant, Mr. E. Smith, a gentleman who represented the first defendant. The case for the plaintiff was that on December 15th, 1886, Smith came to his office and asked him to find a purchaser for the brewery. The plaintiff said he would undertake to do so if the matter was placed exclusively in his hands. The price first asked was 257,000, and the plaintiff, if he succeeded, was to have 1 per cent, commission. On December 10th Smith wrote to plaintiff saying he was fully authorised on behalf of the proprietor of the brewery to find a purchaser, and he should be pleased to avail himself of the plaintiff's assistance, adding that the letter was to stand good for seven days. Shortly afterwards the plaintiff introduced Mr. T. O'Hagan, managing director of the City of London Contract Corporation, who ultimately purchased the brewery for 250,000, and upon this sum he claimed commission at the rate of 1 per cent, from the proprietor, and in the alternative he sued Smith, who, he contended, had rendered himself personally responsible. The defence was substantially that the plaintiff failed to introduce a purchaser within seven days, that Smith was COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 85 in negotiation with O'Hagan before the services of the plaintiff were accepted, and that the ultimate purchase was in no way brought about by the plaintiff's assistance. At the end of the plaintiff's case, his lordship held that there was no evidence to go to the jury against Seckham, and therefore directed a verdict for him. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff as against Smith for 900, and this verdict, though set .aside by a Divisional Court, was reinstated by the Court of Appeal. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Reid, Q.C., and Mr. Hollams ; counsel for the defendant Seckham : Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Chester; counsel for the defendant Smith : Mr. Cock, Q.C., and Mr. F. M. Abrahams. Shurman and Howell v. Parsons. Brighton County Court, 17 August, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 116 Two claimants to commission Commission divided. This was a claim for 25 15s. made by a firm of house agents carrying on business in Bond Street, Brighton. It seemed that the defendant, having lost her husband, was desirous of disposing of his business as a grocer and wine merchant, which she had carried on in St. George's Eoad, and she asked a Mr. Wilkins to assist her to find a purchaser. He spoke to Mr Shurman, and he introduced a Mr. F. Blaker, who ultimately purchased the lease for 350, upon which plaintiffs claimed 17 10s. commission, the balance 8 5s. being commission upon the valuation of the stock. Mr. Shurman said that when he called upon Mrs. Parsons she referred him to Mr. Watkins, who had previously purchased Mrs. Parsons' house agency business, but she did not tell him she had put the matter in his hands, and he understood that defendant still had an interest in that branch of the business. He saw Watkins, who offered him half the commission, but this Shurman declined, and then Watkins refused to pay him anything. Mrs. Parsons said that Watkins purchased the house agency business of her and she had no interest in it. She instructed Watkins to find a purchaser for the 86 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. other business. She asked Wilkins to get her a customer, but did not authorise him to employ a house agent, bhe considered Watkins her agent, and expected to have to pay him the commission. Ultimately the learned judge suggested that the two agents should divide, and this was agreed to. (But see the same case post.) Mr. Lamb appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Pope for the defendant. Richeil v. Selous. Lord Mayor's Court, 15 January, 18S5. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., Recorder, and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 27. Reasonable time to supply draft agreement Neglect of defendant in carrying through negotiations. This action was brought to recover 360 for work done and commission due on a contract for the sale of certain ground rents to which the defendant pleaded not indebted. The plaintiff was a commission agent, and in 1883 became aware that the defendant, who was developing an estate at Garratt Park, Wimbledon, was desirous of selling some ground rents. The defendant agreed in writing to give him half-a-year's purchase-money for his trouble in introducing a customer who would take 720 worth of ground rents on property worth 16,000, at 22 years' purchase. The plaintiff's case was that he introduced Mr. Glutton, the well-known surveyor, who agreed to purchase, and at an interview between the parties it was estimated that the ground rents were worth 720 per annum, and Mr. Glutton was willing to purchase at that rate. In consequence of the defendant neglecting to supply Mr. Glutton with a draft agreement within two months of the interview the latter's solicitor wrote to the defendant's legal adviser stating that the matter must .go off. The latter, however, wrote declining to let Mr. Glutton off, but in the result the negotiations came to nothing. r lhe plaintiff consequently claimed the half of the 720. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 87 The question left to the jury was whether two months was an unreasonable time to wait for the sending in of the contract. The learned judge pointed out that if they thought it was reasonable, and that it was left in the mind of the defendant that an indefinite period was allowed, then the plaintiff could not recover ; but if they considered it was unreasonable, he was entitled to a verdict, because it was the neglect of the defendant which brought abjut a failure of the the negotiations. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Kemp ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Masterman. Burton v. Hughes. Queen's Bench Division, 15 January, 1885. Before Mr. Justice Mathew. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 26. Indirect introduction of purchaser Alteration in price. This was an action brought to recover a sum of 200 commission, payable on the sale of the lease of a house which had belonged to the defendant, and for which the plaintiff alleged that he had found the purchaser. The plaintiff had carried on business as a house and estate agent at 57, Porchester Eoad, W. Early in 1883 the defendant, Sir Walter Hughes, had determined, when he could find a purchaser in the country, to sell the lease of that which he had in Porchester Terrace. The lease had then about 54 years to run, and the defendant was asking 16,000 for it. The plaintiff called upon him after asking him by letter if he was willing to dispose of his lease, and in April, 1883, at a second interview, Sir Walter Hughes had, so the plaintiff swore, asked him his terms. On April 30 an order to view the house had been sent to a gentleman of the name of Howes who had just advertised for a similar one, but the price of the lease was too great for that gentleman. The defendant subsequently put his house into the hands of Messrs. Mullett, Booker and Co., who advertised it for sale, and a solicitor who was & friend of Mr. Howes saw the advertisement and wrote to him about it. Eventually Mr. Howes bought it from Messrs. 88 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mullett, Booker and Co., through this solicitor, for 11,000, and Messrs. Mullett and Co.'s commission was paid them. Under these circumstances the plaintiff claimed commis- sion on the ground that the sale to Mr. Howes had clearly been brought about by his agency. Mr. Justice Mathew, in givirjg judgment in his favour, said that he had, in finding a purchaser, done all that he had contracted to do for the defendant, who ought to have understood that what he had been doing had amounted to an agreement with the plaintiff to pay him a commission on the sale of the house if it were sold to anybody through his intervention. Judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff for 165, being 1 per cent. ( n the 11, 0( 0. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Bowen Kowlands, Q.C., and Mr. Torr ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., and Mr. Willes Chitty. Bean and others v. Heath. City cf London Court, January, 1885. Before Mr Commissioner Kerr. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 19. Claim for advertising Part of property withdrawn. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Bean, Burnett and Eldridge, auctioneers, of 14, Nicholas Lane, sought to recover 12 18s. from the defendant, Mr. W. E. Heath, of 176, Camden Eoad, for moneys paid by them at the alleged request of the defendant. It appeared that in November, 1883, defendant had three properties, and went to the plaintiffs with reference to selling them by auction. Plaintiffs said they should charge 1 per cent., and 15 for cash payments. The three pro- perties were advertised, but the defendant subsequently withdrew two of them. There was a reserve price put upon the property, which was offered for 400, which amount was not obtained. The property not having been sold plaintiffs sent in their account for disbursements, and the advertising in April', 1884, which amounted to 18 Is., and was afterwards reduced to the amount of the claim, 12 18s. For the defence it was contended, as three properties were at first advertised, and plaintiffs were to offer them for 15, that for one property the charge should COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 89 only be one-third namely, 5. This sum was paid into Court by the defendant. On the other hand the plaintiffs said that they had advertised all the three properties ; that they had gone to the expense for the three. The jury, after a short deliberation, found for the plaintiffs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Scott ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Baegg. Cane, Wotton & Co. v. Holmes. Lambeth County Court, January, 1885. Before his Honour Judge Pitt-Taylor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 19. Purchaser refusing to complete owing to alleged misrepresentations of vendor Commission recoverable from vendor. In this case the plaintiffs were auctioneers, surveyors, land and business agents, and had carried on business for a number of years at Bye Lane Bail way Station, Peckham. The action was brought to recover 15 commission due upon the sale of a beerhouse and general stores, in Naylor Boad, Queen's Boad, Peckham, which the plaintiffs re- ceived instructions from the defendant to sell by private treaty. The plaintiffs were old established auctioneers of Peck- ham, and amongst other properties that they were called upon to submit to private treaty was an off-licence beer- house and general stores, situate in Naylor Boad, Peck- ham, belonging to Mr. Mark Holmes, who called upon the plaintiffs and instructed them to sell the lease, goodwill, fixtures and fittings for the sum of 825. The plaintiffs, in due course, advertised this business amongst numerous others in various newspapers, and within the course of a few days the plaintiffs sold the business to a Mr. Edwards, who agreed to purchase the free beerhouse at the full price required by the defendant, and paid a deposit into the hands of the auctioneers which the defendant duly re- ceived. Vendor and purchaser signed the usual contract to complete in fourteen days, but, for some reason which the plaintiffs were unable to find out, the purchaser refused to complete the purchase owing to some alleged misrepre- sentations made by the defendant, which the auctioneers 90 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. had nothing whatever to do with. As the defendant re- fused to take steps to enforce the contract which the plaintiffs had prepared and stamped, the plaintiffs thought that they were bound, in common fairness to the profes- sion, to institute these proceedings to recover recompense for the time, trouble and expense devoted to this business, and they asked his Honour to tell the jury whether they were entitled or not to the claim which they had made. The jury's attention was drawn to a similar case heard at Westminster, Prickett v. Bad/jar, which bore a striking resemblance to the plaintiffs' case, showing that they should recover. Mr. John B. Wotton, of the firm of Cane, Wotton and Co., was called to substantiate the facts of the case, stating that he had personally conducted the business between the parties, and that Holmes and Edwards had both signed the contract at their office, at the agreed price of 325, the deposit being paid at the same time, and the defendant gave a receipt for the money. The defendant's solicitor, in cross-examination, put in a letter wherein plaintiffs had agreed to accept a sum with- out prejudice in settlement, but the defendant would render no satisfactory reason why he did not sue for the specific performance of the contract, and had pocketed the whole of the 20 paid as deposit. It was further proved that although plaintiffs had not sold many public-houses, they had sold a house of Messrs. Morgan Bros., who were defendant's brewer?, and no hitch had then occurred in the transfer of the business. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the full amount of the claim. Horne v. Eberle. Queen's Bench Division, 29 November, 1884. Before Mr. Justice Lopes. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxvii., p. 480. For commission to be recoverable the lender procured must be able and willing to lend the money. The claim here was for 1,000 commission, which the defendant in a letter of January 15, 1884, agreed to pay upon the plaintiff procuring a loan of 61,000 upon the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 91 security of the Grand Hotel, Liverpool. The statement of defence denied that the defendant ever obtained through the introduction of plaintiff or otherwise the sum of 61,000, or that any commission had ever become due from the defendant to the plaintiff. In the course of the trial the plaintiff's case shaped itself into this That he intro- duced to the defendant a person ready and willing to lend the money, but that the negotiations broke off owing to the defendant having misrepresented the value of the security, or alternatively owing to the lender wrongfully refusing to complete. The case for the defence was that the loan had only fallen through because the lender introduced by the plaintiff never was in a position to advance the money, and that the plaintiff's contract was not complete until he had introduced a party able, as well as willing, to lend. The contract sued upon was in these terms " I hereby agree in the event of my obtain- ing through your introduction the sum of 61,000, or any other sum I may accept as a loan or mortgage of my pro- perty at Liverpool, called the Grand Hotel, to pay you a commission of 1,000 on the amount of such loan." This contract was signed by Mr. Eberle, the defendant, who at the same time agreed in writing to leave the com- pletion of the mortgage in the plaintiff's hands exclusively until February 15. On January 17, the plaintiff, an agent for Eberle, concluded the agreement in writing with Mr. F. G. Home, of 36, Cornhill, by which the latter agreed to advance the required sum of 61,000, ' without loss of time," and " in all probability before the 5th of February next," subject to the security being as represented to him, the agreement further representing the security as includ- ing " the Grand Hotel, Liverpool, together with all fittings, decorations, furniture, plate, linen, &c., therein." On receiving this agreement, Mr. Eberle's solicitors wrote to the plaintiff expressing surprise at the inclusion of the furniture, plate, &c., and pointing out that the commission note only authorised the negotiation of a loan on " the Grand Hotel," to which the plaintiff replied that the fur- niture, &c., was included in the particulars of instructions, but that he had a written understanding with Mr. Home that no bill of sale should be registered in respect of this portion of the security. Further correspondence passed, $2 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. and on February 8th, Mr. Home wrote to the plaintiff that the security had been represented to him as worth 195,000, and as this now appeared to be incorrect, the agreement must be cancelled. In forwarding this letter to Mr. Eberle's solicitors, the plaintiff described it as "without foundation," and said that Mr. Home must beheld to his agreement. In his evidence at the trial the plaintiff adhered to these expressions, and said that he considered Home had wrongfully refused to carry out his agreement. It was stated, but not proved in evidence, that Mr. Home had sent down a valuer, who valued the property at 41,000. Neither side called Mr. Home in the first instance, but upon Mr. Winch taking the objection that the plaintiff must show that Mr. Home was able and ready to lend, and the defendant wrongfully refused to complete, the judge adjourned the trial for the attendance of Mr. Home. Mr. Home being called, admitted that he could not have produced 61,000 without re-hypothecating the loan, but that his solicitors had made arrangements by which the money would have been forthcoming, subject to the security being satisfactory. An auctioneer was called who had valued the property for another party, and said that he had reported that the security was not safe for a trustee to advance 60,000 ; but he should say the land and buildings would fetch 60,000 at a forced sale. The learned Judge, in giving judgment, said : The contract is contained in a letter of the 15th January, 1884. (His Lordship read the letter.) What is the meaning of this contract ? I think it is an undertaking by the defen- dant to pay commission if the plaintiff procures a lender ready and willing to advance the money. If the lender, when procured, refuses to advance the money, or if there is any infirmity of title, or if the property is not such as the defendant represented it to the plaintiff this is im- material. The plaintiff has still performed his part of the contract, and is entitled to his commission. It is essential, however, that a lender ready and willing and able should be procured ; otherwise commission agents might earn their commission without rendering any service to their employers. They might get a contract signed by a man of straw and then claim their commission. The question COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 98 in this case is Has the plaintiff procured a lender willing and able to lend the money, against whom the defendant might, with some chance of success, bring an action for specific performance, if necessary ? I arn of opinion that Mr. Horne was not in a position on the 16th of February r when the contract was to be fulfilled, nor at any time, to advance the money. It was contended that the contract went off because the property was not as represented. I have no evidence of that before me. The evidence is the other way. Mr. Wyand, who was called for the defendant, swore that the property, including the furniture, would, at a forced sale, produce 60,000. His Lordship therefore gave judgment for the defendant with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Blake Odgers ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Winch. Satchwell v. Samuel. City of- London Court, 14 September, 1888. Before the Deputy Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 164. Commission not due where no business has been done. This was a chim for 17 10s. commission, at 5 per cent., on the introduction of a tenant for a shop in Grace- church Street, and the plaintiff's case was that he intro- duced a tenant as requested, and there were interviews to arrange terms ; but in the interim the defendant got a better offer, and thereupon declined to pay the commission sought to be recovered. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the learned judge observed to him : You have not done anything for the defendant. This is a kind of claim made by auctioneers and estate agents which should be discouraged. It is absolutely discreditable to seek to get money out of a man when nothing has been done for it. If you get offers from forty people is the commission to be paid forty times over ? The plaintiff replied that there had been various interviews, but the judge pointed out that he was not a solicitor, and therefore not entitled for interviews. The defendant was then called and stated, that he wished to let the shop on a 21 years' lease, whereas the gentleman 94 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. whom the plaintiff introduced wanted if only for three years. Besides there were objectionable stipulations, and he also objected to the references. In summing up the learned judge said that there was not the slightest inkling of evidence to support the claim, which was about as shadowy as could well be imagined ; and the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the defendant. Mr. G. Kebbell appeared for the defendant. Helmore v. Buschman. Lord Mayor's Court, 17 October, 1888. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 216. No written agreement for commission Conflict of evidence. The object of this action was to recover commission alleged to be due to the plaintiff, Mr. Frederick Helmore, of Camden Town, for the sale of a house for the defendant, Miss J. M. Buschman, and for fees as an auctioneer and surveyor, for making an inventory of the furniture and a survey of the state and sanitary condition of the house. The plaintiff said he had been in practice for many years, and had been introduced to the defendant, who was the possessor of the lease of a house at Primrose Hill. He introduced Mrs. Kitts to the defendant, the price being agreed at 560, and he procured part of the money from a solicitor, giving a bill of exchange for the rest. After some negotiations had been entered into, he asserted that defendant expressed her willingness to take almost any- thing for the house, as there were so many houses to let in the neighbourhood. In cross-examination the plaintiff said Mrs. Kitts and the defendant lived in the same house together at the time. When the defendant said she wanted to sell her house, he (plaintiff) saw Mrs. Kitts in another room, and asked her if she would purchase the house. She said she had no money, and he then told her he could find the money if she would buy. Thereupon she said she would buy, and he consequently claimed his COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 95 commission. He did not take instructions from the pur- chaser to make the inventory, and it was not done for her protection. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that she was never introduced by the plaintiff to Mrs. Kitt, inasmuch as she had known her for two years, and Mrs. Kitts corroborated this evidence, but the jury found for the plaintiff for 22 16s. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Briggs ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Witt. Shurman and Howell v. Parsons. Brighton County Court, 12 October, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 216. Refusal to divide commission. This was a new trial of an action brought by a firm of house agents of 30, Bond Street, Brighton, to recover the sum of 25 15s. from Mrs. Parsons, 3, Sudeley Terrace, as commission, 17 10s. being for introducing a purchaser of the grocery business of the late Mr. Parsons, in St. George's Road, and 8 5s. commission on the sale of the stock to Mr. Blaker, who also purchased the business. On behalf of the plaintiffs a Mr. Wilkins deposed that on her husband's death Mrs. Parsons came to see him in reference to the licence attached to the business, and then asked him if he knew of anyone who would be likely to purchase the business. He afterwards saw Mr Shurman, who stated that he thought it would suit a Mr. Blaker, who subsequently purchased the business. Mr. Shurman stated that he went with Blaker to see Mrs. Parsons, and they had an interview, in the course of which Mrs. Parsons showed Mr. Blaker several papers as to the transactions of the business. Mr. Blaker offered her 200 for the lease, goodwill, and fixtures ; but this was not accepted, Mrs. Parsons saying that a gentleman named Watkins had already gone over the place, and the matter had better be left open until the evening, when they could see Mr. Watkins. Mrs. Parsons also asked him if he thought 96 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Blaker was capable of managing a business of that kind. Mr. Blaker came to him afterwards and told him that he had purchased the business for 350, and had paid 50 deposit. On applying for his commission he was referred first to Mrs. Parsons and then to Mr. Watkins, and was offered half commission, which he refused. He did not recognise Mr. Watkins as a co-agent in the matter. The usual commission was five per cent, on the amount realised, and this was what he claimed. After Mr. Blaker had also given evidence for the defence it was contended that there was no contract, either expressed or implied, between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and Mrs. Parsons stated that she sold the house agency business to Mr. Watkins, who was the only agent she had authorised to dispose of the other business. Plaintiff never asked her for commis- sion, but told her he thought that Watkins was acting very shabbily in offering him only half the commission. Mr. Watkius denied that the plaintiff was entitled to the full commission, but he had offered him half, which Mr. Shurman refused. In the course of his summing up his Honour the Judge said that he felt satisfied that Mrs. Parsons had placed the business for disposal in the hands of Mr. Watkins before she mentioned the matter to Mr. Wilkins, and that this was stated to Mr. Shnrman when he introduced Mr. Blaker. Upon the facts of the case he found that plaintiff had no claim upon Mrs. Parsons, and, therefore, gave a verdict for the defendant. He regretted that his sugges- tion to divide the commission made at the last hearing (see ante) was not adopted, as he was sure that plaintiff had a claim against Watkins, but he vvould take care to offer no suggestion on the present occasion. Mr. Lamb appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Pope for ths defendant. Hockley v. Foot. Lord Mayor's Court. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 231. Claim for rent and counter-claim for commission. The plaintiff, Mr. W. Hockley, sued the defendant, Mr. E. Foot, for 7 10s., the amount of one quarter's rent. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 97 Defendant pleaded never indebted, and set up a counter- claim for commission. On behalf of the plaintiff, several letters were put in to prove the claim, one of which was .written by the defen- dant in answer to one from Mr. Vant, plaintiff's solicitor, stating that it was not convenient at that time for him to pay the rent just due, but he would call and do so as speedily as possible. It was denied that any arrangement had been entered into between plaintiff and defendant for the sale of the house, and Mr. Hepburn, the buyer, swore that the defendant had nothing whatever to do with the selling of the house. He purchased it for 200 from the defendant's solicitor, to whom he had been introduced by a Mr. Eoberts. For the defence it was contended that plaintiff's solicitor had agreed to allow the defendant the usual auctioneer's commission if he succeeded in selling the house, and that he did succeed in doing so. Defendant and his wife both swore that the promise had been distinctly made to tham by Mr. Vant, and that they had been put to considerable trouble and expense in endeavouring to let the house. Mrs. Foot said that she had recommended the house to Mr. Hepburn, and that gentleman had told her that to should never have bought it had it not been for her recom- mendation. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and found for the defendant on the counter-claim. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Ladbury. Lewis v. Harper. Lord Mayor's Court. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 231. Where an agreement is made with a firm all the partners must sue. This was a claim brought by the plaintiff, Mr. John A. Lewis, public-house broker, to recover the sum of 12 10s. for selling a public-house business for the defendant, Mr. C. H. Harper. 98 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. It seemed that the defendant bad a house to sell, and arrangements were made with the plaintiff and his then partner to dispose of it. 'Jhe plaintiff found a purchaser named Webster, and the price agreed upon was Jt'800. Ihe purchase was so far carried out that an agreement was drawn up, in which it was stated that the defendant cculd give Webster the remainder of a lease of five and a-half years, but there was only four and a-half years really. The plaintiff deposed that he was instructed there was five and a-half years. As Webster objected to complete, the trans- action was broken off. The plaintiff was told five and a- half, and therefore it was not his fault. In cross-examina- tion he admitted tbat he and the partner he had at the time bed the 50 deposit paid to them. Execution was levied, but there were no effects. On this evidence it was submitted for the defendant that the plaintiff must be non- suited, as he had sued by himself without his partner, and the learned judge tcok this view and entered a non-suit. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Steele ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Ladbury. Jolly v. Garrett. Lord Mayor's Court. Before the Assistant-Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 231. Auctioneer not really the means of bringing about the purchase. This action was brought by Mr. Frank Jolly, auctioneer and surveyor, 66, Leadenhall- street, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Frederick Garrett, the sum of 16 10s., com- mission for introducing to the defendant the purchaser of a house in Fontayne Road, Stoke Newington. The defendant had asked the plaintiff to put the house in his monthly list of houses for sale, and gave him various particulars with reference to it. The plaintiff told the defendant there would be 2 per cent, commission due to him if he introduced a purchaser, to which the plaintiff consented. The plaintiff asked the defendant to sign one of his forms, which he afterwards did, one of the clauses of which was that if any person who had previously been in communication with them should become the purchaser COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 99 the commission would still be payable. The plaintiff put the house in his list, and issued orders to view to a large number of persons. Some three or four months after- wards the defendant called on the plaintiff and pressed him very much to renew his efforts. 875 was fixed as the price of the house by the defendant. Some time after- wards the defendant called on the plaintiff and saw his managing clerk, and suggested the house should be put up for sale. Mr. Matthews (the managing clerk) said 10 would be the out-of-pocket expenses for the sale. Adver- tisements were inserted in the daily papers, and big posters stuck up in various parts of London. Soon afterwards, a Mr. Inch called on the plaintiff. At the sale the reserve price, 690, was not reached, and the property was bought in. The defendant had an offer of 650 from Mr. Inch, which he afterwards accepted, and the purchase was com- pleted, the money being paid. The plaintiff therefore claimed his commission. Evidence in support of this statement was given by the plaintiff and his managing clerk. For the defence the defendant denied that the plaintiff had in any way been the means of bringing about the purchase. Mr. Inch lived two doors from him, and it was in consequence of that that the house was sold. The jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Wildey Wright ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lewis Glyn. Bott v. Hartley. Lambeth County Court, 16 October, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Powell. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 244. Breaking off negotiations. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an auctioneer and house and estate agent, of Tulse Hill and Herne Hill, to recover from Mrs. Margaretta Catherine Hartley, formerly Mrs. Knight Smith, the sum of 25, commission on the sale of a house known as " Tremaine," Croxted Eoad, Dulwich. It appeared from the opening by counsel and the evidence that the plaintiff had acted as agent for the H2 100 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. defendant for some considerable time. He had originally sold the house to the defendant, and afterwards had let it furnished for about a year, at the termination of which he had acted for the defendant in the matter of the dilapida- tions, amounting to between 30 and 40. On March 1st, 1888, defendant gave plaintiff instructions to sell the house for 1,000, and the household effects at a valuation. Plaintiff at once had a board placed in front of the house stating the dwelling was for sale. On March 3rd Mr. James Green called on the plaintiff and asked particulars of the property. He stated that he owned several houses in Croxted Road, and as he did not wish " Tremaine " to be sold to anyone who would lower the rental value of the property, he would offer 800 for the house. The plaintiff submitted this offer to defendant, who declined to accept it. Upon this plaintiff again saw Green, and secured an advanced offer of 900, to include all fittings. Plaintiff again laid this offer before defendant, who refused to accept less than 920 ; but ultimately Green agreed to buy, and the defendant agreed to accept 920 to include all fittings. Plaintiff thereupon wrote Green to appoint an early date for payment of deposit and to sign the contract, when Green stated that he thought his son, who it appeared was the principal in the matter, would not pur- chase the house. Thus the matter remained for some few days, the plaintiff calling upon Green, who was always out. Plaintiff eventually found that the defendant had re- moved the notice board from the premises, and had sold the property behind his back to Green's daughter, who lived with him. Defendant had never instructed plaintiff to remove his board or to take the house from his books. Immediately he discovered what had been done he gave written notice to defendant that, as the property was sold through his introduction, h should claim commission. Plaintiff, after some time had elapsed, wrote to defendant threatening proceedings if his commission was not paid. Defendant called on plaintiff at his office and promised to pay at a later date. This was not done, and plaintiff in- structed his solicitor to commence proceedings. The defence was that plaintiff's negotiations had ceased when Green's son declined to purchase, that plaintiff had not brought about the sale to the daughter, and that really COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 101 no sale had taken place, as the purchaser had borrowed all the purchase money from defendant's solicitor, and de- posited with him a further security of ground rents for 300. Both the solicitors for defendant, and the defen- dant's mother, were closely cross-examined as to their con- duct in the negotiations, the solicitor ultimately stating that he knew at the time Green's daughter was purchasing that some house agent had the matter in hand, and that he had endeavoured to obtain an indemnity from Green's daughter as to plaintiff's claim. He produced several letters from Green's daughter, defendant and himself, wherein it appeared that plaintiff's claim was repeatedly mentioned, and that the daughter at last wrote a letter stating that she had not employed any agent in the matter. Defendant's mother stated she had sold all the furniture, but. had not paid Knight Smith any money. She admitted removing the board, but stated that the house had been removed from plaintiff's books at the time, although she could not fix any date, or produce any document showing when such instructions were given. After considerable argument and discussion by counsel, the learned judge summed up, remarking that the plaintiff had been badly treated, He had exhibited zeal, tact and ability in his negotiations with Green, and had been put to consider- able trouble ; but he (the judge) was there to administer the law as he found it. Hard cases made hard law, and this was one of the ha,rd cases. What he had to consider ua*, " Did the plaintiff carry on and complete the negotiations with Green's daughter ? " He could not find any evidence to show that plaintiff continued negotiating after the re- fusal of the son to purchase, and upon this he must very reluctantly find a verdict for the defendant, but would not allow costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Crispe ; for the defendant: Mr. Colam. 102 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Daggatt v. RatclifFe. Queen's Bench Division, 16 November, 1888. Before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 287. Commission not recoverable wlurc no bond fide purchaser put forward. This action was brought by a commission agent of Manchester to recover damages for the breach of an agreement to pay commission for the procuring of a pur- chaser for the defendant's brewery, in the Rochdale Road, Oldham. The claim was for 1,600. The defendant pleaded that the agreement was not such as was alleged, and denied that the plaintiff obtained a purchaser. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was the owner of a brewery at Oldham, upon which he had been making a profit of between 5,000 and 6,000 a year. At the beginning of the year 1887 he called upon Mr. Daggatt at his offices iu Ward's Buildings, Manchester, and consulted him with respect to finding a purchaser for his business. Mr. Ratcliffe expressed his willingness to sell the brewery for 60,000. It was subsequently arranged that the plaintiff should receive a commission of 1 per cent, on the purchase-money, and that any friend who might assist him in finding a purchaser could have any sum which they obtained over and above 60,000. With the assistance of a Mr. Ashwin the plaintiff found a purchaser who was willing, he said, to give 61,000. An agreement was drawn up by Mr Clegg, solicitor, of Oldham. who was acting for- Mr. Ratclifi'e, and everything appeared to be settled, the date fixed for completion being the 1st of July. The defendant, however, refused to sign the contract without a deposit of 10 per cent., and ultimately took the brewery out of the market as far as the pleintiff and his friends were concerned. Mr. Daggatt contended that he had done all that a commission agent could do under the circumstances, and he was therefore entitled to his remuneration. The plaintiff was called and stated that at the time the arrangement with Mr. Ratcliffe was come to he was carry- ing on business under the name of Douglas and Daggatt. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 103 He still resided in Manchester. Mr. Ashwin represented a syndicate in London who were interested in the purchase of breweries. In cross-examination the plaintiff said he knew nothing about the purchaser. He only knew that he sold the brewery to Mr. Ashwin, a solicitor, for his client. The purchaser he had found was Mr. Ashwin. A letter from Mr. Ashwin to the plaintiff was then read, in which it was stated that the name to fill in the contract as purchaser was Mr. Robert Edmund Davis, of London, and on being further questioned, Mr. Daggatt said that was the name which he supplied to the defendant. He proceeded to say, " I never saw Mr. Davio', and never made inquiries about him. I made some inquiries about Mr. Ashwin. Mr. Ashwin was a promoter, and breweries were all the go just then, i was introduced to him by a gentleman in Manchester, and I had had other matters with him which had convinced me that he was quite straightforward. I expected that it was a syndicate buying the business. Mr. Ashwin, I felt sure, was representing one ; he had told me so. Mr. Ashwin told me that the gentlemen composing it could find two millions as easily as sixty thousand ; the larger the thing was the better." Mr. T. S. Ashwin was also called, and stated that he was a solicitor. At the time he arranged the purchase of the defendant's brewery he was acting for Messrs. Panmure Gordon and Co. and the City of London Contract Corpora- tion. Mr. Davis was a stockbroker. He admitted in cross-examination that he was not practising as a solicitor in 1887. Mr. Davis was one of a very powerful syndicate. It was proposed to form a limited company. Clarke was a nominee of Davis's. Mr. Davis did not wish his name to appear. There was in his opinion a binding contract on the correspondence for Mr. Davis to pay Mr. Batcliffe 60,000. Mr. Davis asked him to provide a nominee, as, being a member of a syndicate, he did not want his name to appear in the contract. The defendant called no witnesses, and it was sub- mitted on the part of the plaintiff that the question whether the plaimiff obtained a purchaser was a question for the jury. 104 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. In summing up Mr. Justice Hawkins said, " As far as I can see there was no syndicate formed, because Mr. Asbwin says he went to Liverpool upon a sort of roving commission generally to inquire after breweries. None of those whose names were mentioned could be sued under the agreement. It is not necessary to say anything about Clarke ; he is admittedly a mere man of straw. There was no 6,000 paid. There was nothing binding on anyone. The responsibility is shifted on to the nominal man of straw and I confess I don't think you (plaintiff's counsel) would like to hear what is passing in my mind in reference to that transaction." A verdict and judgment were given for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Crump, Q.C., and Mr. Banks ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Addison, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Smyly. Lycett v. Kent. Lord Mayor's Court, 24 November, 1888. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 304. Sale of business Plaintiff not the real means of selling. The plaintiff, Mr. Forrest Lycett, trading as Coutts and Co., business agents, sued the defendant, Mr. J. J. Kent, trading as J. J. Kent and Co., to recover 25, being com- mission at the rate of 5 per cent, on the sale of defendant's business for 450. The defendant had, through the agency of the plaintiff, purchased a business of a Mr. Crawford, carried on by him at 93, Fleet Street, and 2, Heath Street, Commercial Eoad. The business was that of a cocoa-mat and matting manufacturer. In July plaintiff instructed the defendant to advertise the business for sale. The business was ulti- mately purchased for 375 by a Mr. Hadden. It was in respect of the sale of the business that the action was brought, plaintiff alleging that he was entitled to commis- sion at the rate of 5 per cent. For the defence it was said that the defendant called upon the plaintiff in September, and found that he (the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 105 plaintiff) was doing nothing in the matter, and there was no likelihood of a partner oeing found. Thereupon the defendant arranged with his manager, a Mr. Harrington, to advertise for a partner to join him in taking over the business. In this way Mr. Harrington, it was said, got into correspondence with Mr. Hadden, who ultimately pur- chased the business for 875 7s. 7d. The sale of the busi- ness was ; it was contended, brought about by the efforts of Mr. Harrington, the plaintiff's manager. Witnesses having been called on both sides, the jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Leslie Probyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lewis Glyn. Titherley v. Richards and Co. Westminster County Court, 17 November, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 304. Procuration fee for obtaining a mortgage No fixed scale -Charges must be reasonable. This action was brought by Mr. G. W. Titherley, a builder, of Clapham, against Messrs. Richards and Co., auctioneers, surveyors and estate agents, of No. 15, Vic- toria Buildings, Victoria Station, and Wandsworth Common and Balham, to recover the sum of 32 18s. 6d. The pro- prietor of the business of Messrs. Eichards and Co. was formerly a Mr. Morgan. During his proprietorship the present plaintiff instructed him to dispose of by public competition several houses situate in Lynnett Avenue, Clapham, at the nominal charge of half-a-guinea per house should the sale prove unsuccessful. The property was not sold, but was afterwards mortgaged by the plaintiff through the instrumentality of Mr. Morgan, that gentleman re- ceiving as his commission or procuration fee 1 per cent, on the amount of the mortgage. In September of last year the business changed hands, the purchaser being the present proprietor, Mr. Barrow. In November the plaintiff required a further advance of 150 on the property. This sum Mr. Barrow was willing to lend, receiving as his com- mission and interest 15, making a total of 165, which 106 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. was to be repaid in three instalments, in three, six, and nine months. Mr. Titherley then required the defendants to dispose of other property cituate in Lynnett Avenue, he asserting that it was agreed between Mr. Burrow and him- self that the terms should be as before viz., half-a-gumea per house. This Mr. Barrow emphatically repudiated, he contending on the other hand that he should be paid his out-of-pocket expenses in addition. The property not being sold, Messrs Mote and Son, solicitors, of Queen Street, Cheapside, introduced by the defendants, agreed to advance 1,400 upon the security of four of the houses. Messrs. Richards and Co. thereupon charged the plaintiff 11 18s. 6d. out-of-pocket expenses on the unsuccessful sale, and 2 per cent, on the amount of the mortgage. These two sums they deducted from money which they held belonging to the plaintiff and forwarded to him the balance. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present action. Mr. G. W. Titherley, the plaintiff, deposed that he was a builder carrying on business at Clapham. During the summer of 1887 he opened negotiations with Mr. Best, the branch manager of Messrs. Richards and Co., with reference to selling the property. He agreed with that gentleman to pay half-a-guinea per house, should the sale prove unsuccessful. Mr. Barrow, the principal of the firm, agreed to the transaction. The sale ultimately proved unsuccessful, the reserve not being reached. Later on in the year he consulted Mr. Barrow with reference to his obtaining an advance upon the security. Mr. Barrow introduced him to Messrs. Mote and Son, who advanced him 1,400. He paid Messrs. Mote and Son 14, being at the rate of 1 per cent, for that transaction. Mr. James Best said he was manager to Messrs. Richards and Co., before Mr. Batrow purchased the business. Mr. Morgan was the then proprietor. He told the plaintiff that Mr. Barrow was willing to do business on the same terms as before. On the part of the defendants, Mr. James Barrow said that he purchased the business of Messrs. Richards and Co. from Mr. Morgan on the 13th October, 1887. On the 14th November the plaintiff called at his office. He made an entry in his diary of the substance of the conver- sation. The plaintiff wanted a loan of 150, the security COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 107 being four houses which were already under mortgage for .1,400. He then agreed to advance the money, receiving 15 as interest and commission. The plaintiff then said hie wished to sell four other houses, and it was agreed be- tween them that should the sale be unsuccessful, he should be paid his out-of-pocket expenses. Subsequently the plaintiff desired to mortgage the property. Nothing definite as regards his charges was arranged between them. He made a valuation and report, and upon the faith of that report Messrs. Mote and Son agreed to advance 1,400 upon the security. There was no fixed scale of remunera- tion for obtaining a mortgage ; it depended upon the nature of the security and other circumstances. He considered that 2 per cent, was a fair sum for securing the amount of the mortgage. In addition to these witnesses. Mr. William V. May, formerly manager at Victoria for Mr. Morgan, said that he informed the defendant in the summer of last year that the business was about to change hands. He considered that 11 18s. 6d. was the out-of-pocket expenses of the unsuccessful sale, and that 2 per cent, was a fair amonnt to charge as a procuration fee for obtaining the advance upon the property. Mr. Walter Hail, surveyor and land agent, 40, Chancery Lane, said he had had 15 years' experience in his profession. There was no fixed scale of professional charges for negotiating mortgages. He had no hesitation in saying that 2 per cent, was a reasonable charge. Mr. John Jones, auctioneer and surveyor, 20, St. George's Road, South Belgravia, gave corroborative evidence, and in the result the learned judge decided that the defendants were entitled to their expenses out-of-pocket, and that 1 per cent, was sufficient as procuration fee for obtaining the mortgage. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. A. Bethune ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. H. A. Forman. 108 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Wright v. Jarrett. Lord Mayor's Court, 12 December, 1888. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 336. Remote introduction of purcliaser Commission recoverable. In this case Mr. James William Wright and Mr. John Thomas Williams, financial agents, 22, Threadneedle Street, sued Mr. James Alexander Jarrett, who traded under the title of Bevan, Hill and Co., financial agents, Lombard Street, for 1,000 commission on the sale of a brewery at Hull. It appeared that the plaintiffs introduced to the defen- dant a Mr. Houghton, who, in his turn, introduced a Mr. Seaman, an agent for the sale of brewery properties, as a likely purchaser for a brewery at Clapton, which the de- fendant had in his hands for sale. This sale was not effected, but subsequently some clients of Mr. Seaman's, Messrs. Gledow, Dibbs and Co., did purchase from the defendant a brewery at Hull for 23,000. The plaintiff Williams said that he was the means of bringing this pro- perty to the notice of Seaman, and that defendant agreed to pay him 1,000 if a sale was effected, but he declined to give him a commission note, saying that he might trust his word. Defendant denied this, and said the particulars were given to Mr. Seaman direct from his office. Mr. Hill, a former partner of defendant's, however, stated that he gave Williams the particulars of the property, and though he did not remember 1,000 being named, thought something was said about 2 per cent. Mr. Seaman stated that the purchase was effected by direct negotiation to the defendant, but said he never knew him until Houghton in- troduced him. Sir Thomas Chambers, addressing the jury, said that if they considered the sale was effected through the plaintiffs' introduction, though it was some- what circuitous and remote, they would be entitled to some remuneration. The jury found for the plaintiffs for 875. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. H. S. Firminger and Mr. F. G. Locke ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Payne. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 109 Giddy and Turner v. Pink. Guildford County Court, 20 December, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Lushington. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxii., p. 368. Eeduction of commission to party in the trade, but no unauthorised deduction allowed. This was a claim for 10 10s., balance of a commission due to Messrs. Giddy and Turner, estate agents, of London and Guildford, for the sale of a house belonging to defen- dant, a builder, of Milford. The house, which was called Shackleford House, was sold for 4,250, on which sum a commission of 108 15s., according to the. scale arranged, was due to them, but a third of this was allowed Mr. Pink, he being in the trade. Mr. Pink now wanted 10 deduct 10 10s. as commission to Mr. J. C. Collier, of Godalming, who acted as his agent. It was stated for the defendant that the plaintiffs acquiesced in the arrangement as to em- ploying Mr. Collier, but the plaintiffs denied this. In 1886 the defendant instructed them and asked them to put his house in their list. This they did. Mr. Pink wrote after- wards saying Mr. Collier was his agent, and they could get any further particulars from him. After some correspon- dence, in which the plaintiffs refused to agree to Mr. Collier being mixed up in it, his clients wrote to Mr. Pink saying they did not do business in that way, and unless they heard from him they would remove his house from their list. Mr. Pink replied that if they found a customer he would agree to their usual conditions, a copy of which he would like to have sent them. ; and this was done. The defendant's counsel argued that Mr. Pink did not sign the conditions, and therefore did not agree to them, but the judge thought Mr. Pink's letters were a contract ; and it was then proved that the plaintiffs introduced a Mr. Eccles, who eventually became a purchaser of the house. This introduction was admitted, but the defendant alleged that negotiations were broken off with Mr. Eccles, and were afterwards renewed by Mr. Collier. The judge thought there was nothing in the defence, and that the law was quite clear on the point. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for full amount claimed with costs. 110 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Duke (instructed by Messrs. Law and Co.) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Broxholm (instructed by Messrs. White and White.) Millar v. Toulmin. Queen's Bench Division, 30 November, 1885. Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxviii., p. 520 ; Vol. xxix., p. 286 and p. 330 ; and Vol. xxx., p. 453. Property let by an agent to a tenant u/ho afterwards purcliases The question of the effective cause of the transaction is one of fact. In this lengthy and important case, the question was raised as to the right of an estate agent to commission on the sale of an estate, the point being whether, when a pro- perty is let by an agent to a tenant who afterwards pur- chases it, the agent is entitled to commission on the sale. The tenant for life of the estate who, prior to Lord Cairns' Act of 1882, had not power to sell the estate, had let it for six months, and then for a long lease for years ; and afterwards, after the Act, had sold it to the tenant for 75,000 ; and the agent, having been paid his com- mission on the letting, claimed commission on the price, which was resisted. The plaintiff was an estate agent in Grafton Street, and it appeared that his terms were these (which were similar, it was stated, to those of other agents), " Where a property is let to a tenant who becomes the purchaser, commission on the sale will be charged deducting the commission on the letting," the commission, however, only to be due if Mr. Millar introduced the tenant or purchaser. In November, 1881, Mr. Toulmin, who had a life interest in a mansion and estate in Hertfordshire, known as Childwickbury, called on Mr. Millar to place it in his hands for letting fur- nished, and told him, in answer to a question, that he should be glad to sell it if he could for 84,000. The plaintiff being acquainted with Mr. Blundell Maple, whom he knew to be in want of a country house, offered it to him telling him that the price was 85,000 (the price COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Ill being raised 1,000) ; and he, after looking at it, took it furnished for 12 months, at 850 a year, 530 to be paid for the first six months, 320 for the second, with the option of having it for 12 months. Upon this Mr. Millar sent in his claim for commission on the rent for six months 61, and Mr. Toulmin sent back a cheque for 76, supposing that would cover a letting for 12 months ; but this was returned, as there was a question what was to follow. In the course of the six months, Mr. Maple, liking the property, took a lease of it for 17 years from Mr. Toulmin. Upon hearing of this, Mr. Millar sent in his account in these terms : " January, 1880. Having received your instructions to find you a tenant or purchaser for your estate, Childwick- bury, near St. Albans, registering particulars, attending Mr. Blundell Maple, who I thought it would be likely to suit, when he appeared to entertain the matter and asked for further particulars, when he decided to go and look at the property, and desired me to make an offer to rent fur- nished, as he would not like to purchase until he had tried if it would suit Mrs. Maple, his offer being to rent furnished for a year at 860, with option of leaving at end of six months, the first six months' rent to be 530, and the second 330, repaying 50, &c., which offer you accepted. Commission on first portion of rent, 530, and the 50, 29 6s. ; other charges, valuation, inventory, &c., 32 15s. 9d. 62 Is. 9d. To commission on the letting of Child wickbnry at 720, and one of the farms at 200, together 920, on lease for 17 years, 69 ; to commission on sum paid for fixtures, &c., 62 10s. 192 11s. 9d. Allowance made 42 lls. 9d. 150." There were these words written on the account: "Note. In the event of the tenant purchasing the property the commission on the amount of the purchase-money will become payable." As to this, however, the defendant did not assent to it, and wrote : " As to the question of commission on the sale, the question must remain open, as I have only a life interest, but I have no intention of selling the property ; " and kis solicitor wrote distinctly disclaiming the liability for any further commission. In the result the 150 was paid to Mr. Millar. After this Mr. Maple, still liking the property, desired to purchase it, 112 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. and after the passing of Lord Cairns' Act of 1882, allowing the sale of settled estates by tenants for life, negotiations took place between him and Mr. Toulmin, which resulted in the sale of the estate to Mr. Maple for 75,000, on which, in 1884, the plaintiff claimed his commission to the amount of 730. His full claim would have been 77/5, but he deducted 45 as the proportion of the commission on the lease. The claim was resisted, and the plaintiff proposed a reference to the arbitration of an estate agent on his side and a lawyer on the defendant's side, and a statement of facts was drawn on the part of the plaintiff and sent to the defendant, the defendant making altera- tions by the insertion of certain passages. Nothing, however, came of the proposal for arbitration, and so this action was brought, in which the claim was put on two grounds (1) A contract to pay according to the scale, and (2) to pay what was usual and reasonable. The plaintiff was called and gave evidence in support of his case. He stated that the defendant came to him to let the property. He, knowing that Mr. Maple wanted to purchase such a property, asked defendant if he would sell, and he said he would, and gave him particulars for the sale: "Price 84,000, and timber at a valuation, the agricultural rent of the estate being 1,500 a year, com- prising three farms, two-thirds arable and one-third pasture, with a rent charge of 150 a year on the estate." Shortly afterwards he wrote to Mr. Maple about it that is, as to letting telling him at the same time it was for sale at such a price. " I have been on the look out for such a property as you wish to buy ; it is an old historical pro- perty, very enjoyable," &c. (Particulars were referred to " on the other side.") Afterwards he saw Mr. Maple about it, and he said he thought it might suit him, that he would take Mrs. Maple to see it, and that if she agreed to it he would buy it. The terms for letting were 850 a year, the mansion being furnished. He saw Mr. Maple more than once about it. The defendant, knowing of the negotiations, saw him, and spoke of the commission, sug- gesting it should be paid by Mr. Maple, which the plaintiff said he told him could not be, as he was not acting for Mr. Maple. The defendant asked him what the commission would be on a sale at a price of near 90,000, and he COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 113 handed him bis scale of charges, and told him that it would be 900 or 1,000. The defendant suggested that if he was to pay that, then 1,000 ought to be added to the purchase-money, so that he was to ask 85,000 instead of 84,000. In consequence of that he wrote to Mr. Maple that as the trustees desired the money to be invested, he must add 1,000 to the price. The plaintiff was here asked whether, supposing there was a letting, say for 21 years, and in the course of the term the tenant, liking the estate, said he would purchase it, would the owner have to pay com- mission on the sale ? He answered that that would depend upon what preceded the letting, and if, as here, the intro- duction was really for a sale, and the party only went into possession under a letting in order to see if he liked the property, then he would be chargeable with the commission on the sale, and that, he said, was this case. In cross- examination, he admitted that he had never received authority to sell for less than 84,000, and being asked whether, if the sale had been for 180,000, he would have been entitled to a commission upon it, he said, "Yes." The witness beino; asked whether, if at any time during the joint lives of himself and Mr. Toulmin the estate was sold, he would be entitled to commission, he said, Yes. Even if you had gone to Australia immediately after the letting, and had had no further communication with Mr. Maple, you would still have been entitled to the com- mission ? Yes. You might have come home at 90 years of age and claimed the commission ? I do not know as to that. The learned judge who had tried the case, Lord Cole- ridge, remarked : The claim is this that as he brought the parties together, and they afterwards became vendor and purchaser, he was entitled to the commission. The plaintiff said he had brought them together as vendor and purchaser. Lord Coleridge : That is the question. The plaintiff said it was the custom. Lord Coleridge : It is not for estate agents to settle amongst themselves what should be paid to them. The plaintiff, in further cross-examination, said he thought the original letting was preliminary to a sale, and 114 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. being reminded that the lease intervened, he said it was be- cause Mr.Toulmin was not then in a position to sell. Being asked why he was entitled to commission on the sale of furniture, &c., he said it followed upon his introduction. Asked whether if the purchaser had purchased any other estate of Mr. Toulmin he would be entitled to the commis- sion, he said that if the land was adjoining he would be. Asked if it was a different estate, he said, No ; upon which Lord Coleridge asked Why ? It would have equally resulted from your introduction. To this he answered that he should not have thought it resulted from it. In re-examination, he said, so far as he knew, the agent who introduced two parties together who became vendor and purchaser was entitled to commission on the sale. Lord Coleridge said that the mere introduction was not enough. The plaintiff must have been the effective cause of the transaction. An estate agent was called to prove that the charge was reasonable, and he said that if an estate was put into the agent's hands " to let or sell," then, if after a letting there was a sale, the agent would be entitled to his commission. In answer to the jury, being asked how long afterwards the liability to commission would continue, he said five years. On behalf of the defendant, it was pointed out that at the time of the letting Mr. Toulmin had no power to sell the estate, so that he could hardly have employed and em- powered the plaintiff to sell it ; and he urged that the sale was two years afterwards, and that the plaintiff had done nofliing to lead to it, and had had no communication with Mr. Maple m the meantime, and if the plaintiff's claim were to be supported, it would be very dangerous to enter the offices of an estate agent. Mr. Maple was called, and stated that Mr. Millar, the plaintiff, had nothing to do with the second purchase at the price of 75,000, which, he said, was never mentioned until about six months pre- viously to it in 1884. In cross-examination, he said he did not at first intend to purchase the property ; he desired to find if it would suit him. He himself being an estate agent was challenged with a statement of his own terms, as to which, however, he said that he should not charge COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 115 commission in such a case as the present, though he admitted that if in the original contract for letting there was an option for purchase then commission would be chagerible. Mr. Toulmin, the defendant, was also called, and, though he admitted that he had received Mr. Millar's scale of charges, he denied that he had read them. There was at first, he said, nothing but a letting, and he had no power to sell until after the Settled Estates Act of 1882 that is, in 1884. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that his trustees had large powers to sell under the settlement, and that at the first he instructed the agent to let, and, if he could, to sell for 84,000, but not for less. This closed the evidence in the case, and the learned counsel for the defendant cited Curtis v. Nixon, "that a custom that a house agent who introduces a tenant shall be paid a com- mission on every subsequent letting to the same tenant is irrational and bad." On the part of the plaintiff, on the other hand, it was contended that the case last cited was different, because there the possibility of a purchase was contemplated from the first, and the purchase arose out of the original trans- action which had been brought about by the plaintiff's introduction. Counsel quoted Mansell v. Clements and Watkins v. Ri/nnll, and contended that the question was whether the sale arose out of the introduction. Moreover, he urged that there was an express contract, as the plain- tiffs scale of charges was handed to the defendant, and this made a contract even if the defendant had not read it. Lord Coleridge, in summing up the case to the jury, said the question was whether the plaintiff, the agent, had by his acts brought about the particular transaction that is, in this case, the sale of the property. Was this sale brought about by the act of the plaintiff? As to the sug- gestions of an actual contract, the plaintiff's authority to sell was for 84,000. No doubt there had been previous notice of the plaintiff's intention to claim the commission on any future sale, but it was not assented to, and, on the contrary, was expressly repudiated and dissented from at the time. The first transaction was a letting for twelve months. The second, entirely distinct, was a lease, on i2 116 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. which, however, the plaintiff had been paid his commission- At that time the plaintiff had not the power to sell, and from that time that is, from 1881 to 1884 no communication took place between the plaintiff and Mr. Maple. During all that time Mr. Maple was a mere lessee, and it was not until 1884 without any communication from Mr. Millar he resolved to purchase. If the jury thought that the sale was " brought about by the acts" of the plaintiff then they would find in his favour. If they thought it an inde- pendent transaction, then they should find for the defendant. Then as to the actual contract set up on the ground of implied assent to the terms of the plaintiff's scale, he did not think it could be sustained, for it did not appear that the defendant ever assented to it, and, on the contrary, he had sworn, and it was not controverted, that he had never noticed or read the paper, nor did it mean what was suggested. Mr. Maple's terms were the same, and yet he had stated that he never should make the charge in such a case as this but only if the purchase was originally in contemplation, and provided for in the original contract. A man was not to be bound by the terms of a document he had never read, and, if he were, in this case the terms in question did not support the present claim, and, moreover, the defendant had expressly dissented. On the whole, therefore, the question would be whether the plaintiff by his acts brought about the transaction. The jury found for the defendant, but the verdict was afterwards set aside by the Court of Appeal as being against the weight of evidence, and judgment w#,s entered for the plaintiff for 676. On a further appeal being made by the defendant to the House ,of Lords, the original verdict of the jury in favour of the defendant was upheld, and the judg- ment of the Court of J^ppeaT was reversed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Cagnay ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Green, Q.C., Mr. CJock, and Mr. Beddall. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 117 Pells v. Smith. Lowestoft County Court, 10 January, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Sir Francis Roxburgh. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 31. Principal concluding transaction behind back of agent Commission recoverable. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Pells Bros., house and estate agents, of Lowestoft, sued the defendant, Mr. S. R. Smith, a grocer and draper, for a sum of 19 3s. for com- mission, on the introduction of a Mr. Ashby as purchaser of defendant's business at 5 per cent, on the first 100 and 2^ per cent, on the remainder of the purchase money, which amounted to 666. The evidence for the plaintiffs went to show that in May, 1888, the defendant called upon the plaintiffs, and gave them instructions to dispose of his business in Raglan Street, Lowestoft. The business was advertised by the plaintiffs, and on June 5th, defendant wrote withdrawing the property as he had sold it. As a matter ot tact he had not sold it, and he went back to the plaintiffs again re- questing them to try and sell it. An advertisement was again published in the papers, and in August a Mr. J. Ashby called at plaintiffs' office and he received an order to view the business. When Mr. Ashby returned he said it was too large for him. On the following day defendant called on plaintiffs, and suggested that they should write to Ashby, but plaintiffs did not think it advisable. Messrs. Pells considered Ashby would not have it, and con- tinued to answer other applications for the business. In September Mr. F. S. Pells saw defendant and Ashby, when defendant said he had disposed of the business to Ashby, and repudiated plaintiffs' action in the matter on the ground that they had declined to write to Ashby. He told plaintiffs' clerk that if they wanted their commission they would have to sue him for it. In cross-examination Mr. S. F. Pells said defendant did not offer plaintiffs 10 first and afterward 15. Plaintiffs first charged 33 6s., being 5 per cent, on the 666, but amended their charge to the present claim, as they did not do the valuation. They had, however, reduced their charge contrary to their 118 . COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. solicitor's advice, who considered them entitled to the larger amount. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that he went to plaintiffs' offices and told them distinctly in the presence of their clerk that if they sold his business he would pay them 10. About six weeks afterwards he increased his offer to 15 if they sold his business. When plaintiffs said they would not write to Ash by he went to him and sold the business to him, and the bargain had been con- cluded. His Honour said the plaintiffs brought the purchaser and seller together, and therefore, if defendant went behind their backs and sold the business, he still would have to pay for the introduction which he had himself authorized the plaintiffs to procure. The action was really unde- fended and should never have been defended. He did not believe that any such bargain as had been described ever took place. A purchase had been brought about by the agency of the plaintiffs, but defendant went behind their backs as soon as he found they knew someone likely to buy the business and, to escape paying their commission, quietly sold the business, pocketed the money, went to London, and then snapped his fingers at the plaintiffs. He gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Mr. Wiltshire appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Linay for the defendant. Nokes v. Executors of Jones. Clerkenwell County Court, 16 January, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Edis Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii.,p. 48. No sufficient proof of indirect introduction. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Nokes and Nokes, who were surveyors and estate agents, of 66, Gresham Street, E.G., and 259, Caledonian Road, N., sued the defendants, the executors of Mr. John Jones, for commission on the in- direct introduction of a tenant for a house and shop, in Copenhagen Street, Islington. The facts of the case were as follows : The plaintiffs were retained to distrain on the goods and to eject the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 119 tenant of No. 126, Copenhagen Street. The landlord thereupon requested the plaintiffs to let the property for him, and they immediately took means to do so by adver- tising the property in their register and by placing bills in the windows, &c. Among the applicants was a Mr. Michael Lyons, who verbally agreed to take the property. Before the negotiations were finally concluded the agent of the adjoining house and shop (which was also unlet) pre- vailed upon Mr. Lyons to take the latter property, and, as it was situate nearer the Caledonian Eoad, he did so. The plaintiffs thereupon claimed commission on the indirect introduction, being 5 per cent, on the first year's rent of 50. or 2 10s. The defendants altogether denied their liability to pay commission. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the solicitor for the defendants argued that they had not established their claim, and the learned judge took that view, and non-suited them with costs. Mr. S. Evans appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Pollock for the defendants. Evans v. Hill. Deal County Court, 11 January, 1889. Before his Honour Juclge Selfe. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 48. The relation of vendor and purchaser brought about by the agent. The plaintiff in this case was a commission agent, and having heard that the business of the Rising Sun, W aimer, was to be disposed of, he made arrangements to meet defendant, and an agreement was made for plaintiff to receive 5 per cent, if he effected a sale, and out-of-pocket expenses. Defendant said he would give him more than that, .but plaintiff replied that that was his charge, and he went to the house and took an inventory at defendant's own request. Mr. Hargrave, the present tenant, called upon plaintiff, and he took him over the house as a pur- chaser, in company with Mr. Hill, showing him everything that was to sold. Mr. Hargrave did not make up his mind, but said, in the presence of defendant, that he would 120 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. write concerning it, and be subsequently purcbased tbe business from tbe defendant. Plaintiff saw defendant, who said tbat Mr. Hargrave did not like agents, and would bave nothing to do witb it, but be (plaintiff ) would bave bis money all right. Plaintiff called upon defendant for bis commission, but be said be would not get anything, as be sold tbe house through tbe brewer's agent. Plain- tiff replied tbat be sold it to tbe man be introduced. Defendant then said he might pay him for tbe advertise- ments. Five per cent, was the usual charge. He had paid more than 12s. 6d. for advertisements. In cross- examination, plaintiff said tbat the defendant told him be did not like tbe business, and wanted to get out of it. In giving him instructions to let the bouse, defendant said, " Get me a customer as quickly as you can ; push it." He did not remember defendant saying it was already in the agent's hands, and therefore he could not give it to him. The plaintiff's housekeeper stated tbat the defendant came several times to plaintiff's shop, and had asked her if plaintiff had let tbe Kising Sun at Walmer. She heard defendant ask plaintiff if the people bad been about the bouse, and to push the bouse as much as he could, and stand on nothing to get rid of it. The landlord of the Kising bun gave confirmatory evidence. For tbe defence the defendant deposed that tbe plaintiff told him he could let the house, and asked him what he wanted for it. He replied 110, without any valuation, and explained to plaintiff how many rooms there were, and plaintiff said bis terms were 5 per cent. He gave plaintiff no instructions to let the house. When they asked the price he said 150. Defendant said notbing, but he afterwards told plaintiff he was asking too much money, and would never let tbe bouse if he asked so much. When Mr. Hargrave returned, he asked defendant what be paid to go in, and be replied 114. Hargrave said that if plaintiff had anything to do with it he would not. 100 was agreed to. Plaintiff afterwards came up and said he could have got moro money if defendant had left it in his bands. He went to plaintiff's shop, but did not offer to pay him anything, or put tbe house in bis bauds. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. LAI The learned judge said the only question was whether the relation of vendor and purchaser was brought about by the introduction of the plaintiff, and on that point there was no doubt. He must give judgment for plaintiff. Mr. A. C. Brown appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. B. Payne for the defendant. Wansborough and Sons v. Lewis. Weston-super-Mare County Court, 14 January, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Metcalfe. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 63. Signing agreement as to commission under misapprehension. The plaintiff's in this case were house and estate agents of Wesion-super-Mare, and claimed of the defendant 33 18s. 6d. commission on the purchase of certain pro- perty. The defendant paid 13 13s. 6d. into Court and disputed the balance. The particulars of the plaintiffs' claim were March,. 1888, commission as agreed on the purchase of No. 16, Claremont Crescent, at 650, at 2^ per cent., 16 5s. ; April, 1888, commission on the purchase of Nos. 1 and 2, Park Crescent, at 700, at 2^ per cent., 17 10s. ; and in May, of the same year, removal of pianoforte, 3s. 6d. The defendant had paid into Court in respect of the first item 6 10s., in respect of the second item 7, and the third item was paid in full. The question to be tried was as to whether the commission was to be 2 per cent, or a lesser sum, and whether the defendant had paid into Court sufficient in respect of that commission. The plaintiffs' case was that in the beginning of 1888- the defendant, a young lady of Weston-super-Mare, came of age, and came into possession of a certain sum of money, and as she had known Mr. Wansborough for some time, he having acted for her family for many years, she saw him about investing certain sums of money, and he advised her that if she could purchase house property at what he, she and her solicitors might consider fair prices, it would be a good investment. Messrs. Baker, Son, James and Reed acted as her solicitors, and no complaint was ever made by them in regard to the amount paid for 122 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the properties. In March. 1888, the plaintiffs had upon their books, acting as they were for the vendor (Mr. Chalmers), No. 10. Clarem<>nt Crescent, and they men- tioned this matter to Miss Lewis. Negotiations were entered into with the owner and he wanted 700. Ulti- mately, however, it was arranged that he shoulo take 650 if the transaction WAS to be c'ear to him of commission. Plaintiffs then informed the defendant that she would have to pay the commission of 2 per cent., and she signed a document agreeing t the purchase on these terms. The contract was sent to her solicitors, and the transaction was completed. Later on the defendant spoke to the plaintiffs with regard to some property in Park Crescent. The owner, Mr. W. C. Cox, asked 780, but negotiations were continued, and the owner was induced to take 700 for the property, subject to Miss Lewis paying the commission. It was considered to be an advantageous arrangement, as the commission would only amount to about 17, whereas the abatement on the purchase money was 80. Two documents were signed, but one of them could not be found. The other was a paper signed by the defendant promising to pay Messrs. Wansborough's costs. The defence briefly was that the defendant's signature to the documents having relation to commission was ob- tained from her under the impression that it was simply an authority for the purchase of the property ; that the said documents were not read over to her nor explained ; and that the defendant had no intimation that she would be expected to sign a document agreeing to pay 2- per cent. Counsel admitted that the term " commission " was used on the second occassion, but the defendant was only led to suppose that it would be a trifle. Miss Lewis was young and inexperienced, and she went to Mr. Wans- borough in all confidence, and it was not until a dispute arose over a bill for some furniture that she decided to do business through Messrs. Norton and Lalonde instead of Mr. Wansborough. The question was whether Mr. Wansborough was justified in charging 2 per cent. The defendant would emphatically state that the 2 per cent, was never brought to her mind until the bill was sent in. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 128 The learned judge considered that 1 per cent, was sufficient remuneration under the circumstances, and that as the plaintiffs had not made out their case, judg- ment must be simply for the amount which had been paid into Court. Counst-1 for the plaintiffs : Mr. H. R. Wansborough (instructed by Messrs. W. H. rtmith and Son) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Elliott (instructed by Messrs. Baker, Son, James and Reed). Wright v. Wiltshire. City of London Court, 30 January, 1889. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 79. Agent entitled to commission where a sale goes off merely by the default of his principal. In this case Mr. Alfred Wright, trading as Wright and Co., auctioneers, valuers, and general business agents, of 2, Union Court, Old Broad Street, sought to recover payment of 5 commission for obtaining a purchaser of a business which was put into his hands by the defendant, Mr. W. Wiltshire, of Epsom. It seemed from the evidence that the defendant had a milk business for sale, and he asked the plaintiffs to obtain a purchaser for him. The price he mentioned he should require was 100, and he asserted that the business he did was 80 quarts of milk per day. The plaintiff found a pur- chaser named Gore, who said that having paid the plaintiff a deposit of 9, he went with the defendant to see the round. He found, he stated, that instead of 80 quarts he did not even do 60 quarts a-day. The business was much over-rated, so he declined to have anything to do with it. The plaintiff said he was to be paid 5 per cent, commission on procuring a customer, but he certainly did not know that the defendant's business was to have turned out as it did or he would not have sent Mr. Gore down. The defendant said the business was as good as he repre- sented it to be, but in answer to this statement, Mr. Gore said the defendant offered to take 60 instead of the 100. 124 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. ID giving judgment his Honour said the defendant had made a terrible bungle of the whole afi'air. There was a conflict of evidence, but he must find for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Mr. Arthur Speechley appeared for the plaintiff. Brown v. St. George's House Company (Limited). Lord Mayor's Court, 26 January, 1889. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 79. Dispute as to what agent introduced lessee. This was an action brought by Mr. JB. Brown, an, auctioneer and estate agent, carrying on business in the City, against the St. George's House Company (Limited), to recover 70, being commission at the rate of 5 per cent, on the first year's rental of a portion of the defendants' premises, St. George's House, Eastcbeap, for introducing the present tenants, Messrs. Thurbar, Gates and Co., to- the defendants. Mr. Peters, the secretary of the defendant company, furnished the plaintiff with particulars of certain offices on the ground floor of St. George's House, and agreed to pay him a commission of o per cent, upon the first year's rental if he succeeded in letting same. Sub- sequently the plaintiff, it was stated, introduced Messrs. Thurbar, Gates and Co. to the defendants, and this firm ultimately became the tenants of the offices in question at a rental of 1,400 a year, the rent originally asked by the defendants being 2,200 a year. The defence was that the introduction of Messrs. Thur- bar, Gates and Co. was not brought about by the plaintiff, but by Messrs. Ellis, some months before the plaintiff came on the scene. The plaintiffs managing clerk ad- mitted in cross-examination that at the first interview which took place between himself and Mr. Peters he declined to mention the names of the likely tenants, and that the defendants were unacquainted with their names until a month afierwards. Mr. Gates was called, and said that he first received offers of the property in January, 1888, from Messrs. Ellis, but he had no rt collection of having made a definite COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 125 offer before Mr. Brown's intervention. His only reason for not taking the premises before was tbat the rent was too high. The parties agreed to a verdict for the plaintiff for 35, and judgment was given accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Lush. Emanuel v. W. H. Cooke and Co. Southampton County Court, 12 February, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Leonard. Beported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 112. Disputed rate of commission Lessees alleged to be men of straw. The plaintiff, an outfitter of High Street, Southampton, sought to recover of the defendants, house agents, of 3, Bridge Eoad, Southampton, 10 5s., which the defendants had deducted as commission on letting plaintiff's house and shop. The point in dispute was as to the amount of commission defendants were entitled to charge on the letting of the property. After negotiating two months the defendants succeeded in letting the property, receiving a deposit of 25. On the signing of the agreement they deducted their commission (the usual amount on properties let on lease), and handed plaintiff a cheque for the balance. He pro- tested against the commission being deducted, but accepted the cheque, which he cashed, and then brought this action. On the part of Mr. Emanuel it was urged that he had agreed with the defendants that only 5, or 5 per cent, of the fresh year's letting, should be paid, and nothing for subsequent years ; whereas defendants claimed to be en- titled to charge 5 per .cent, on the first year's rent and 2| per cent, on the two subsequent years' rental. The pro- perty was let on a twenty-one years' lease, at 100 a year, to Messrs. Cornish, but it was said that the tenants de- camped as soon as they got on the premises, whereas defendants affirmed that the tenants remained in occupa- tion from September 29 to December 11, were substantial people, and likely to fulfil the tenancy, but Mr. Emanuel 126 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. insisted on such stringent terms, including a provision that year by year, at their own cost, the tenants should apply to the magistrates for a licence for the premises, that they refused to sign the lease. Judgment was ultimately given for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and costs, but without prejudice to the defendants bringing an action for the recovery of commission, when Messrs. Perkins and Son, who had also claimed commission in connection with the same letting, might be heard as witnesses on behalf of Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Bell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Winstanley for the defendants. Thrower v. Atkins and another. Westminster County Court, 27 February, 1888. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 128. Disputed rate oj commission. This was an action to recover 6 under the following circumstances. The plaintiff was owner of certain premises in Oxford Street, W., and the defendants were house and estate agents, carrying on business in Shaftes- bury Avenue. The plaintiff's case was that he was de- sirous of finding a tenant for the premises in question, but owing to the shortness of the lease, which had only a year and a-half to run, there was great difficulty in letting them. About that time the defendants called on him, and suggested that the matter should be placed in their hands, as they would be likely to find a suitable tenant. That course was accordingly adopted, the plaintiff agreeing to pay the usual commission of 5 per cent. Soon afterwards the plaintiff succeeded in getting from the ground landlord a 21 years' lease, and shortly after- wards the defendants found a suitable tenant, from whom they received a deposit of 25. The premises were let at a rental of 250 a year, and 100 premium, which repre- sented a commission of 17 10s. due to the defendants r instead of which they had retained 23 10a. out of the deposit money as their charges, and the difference between COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 127 those two sums was the amount now in dispute. The defendant said it was the universal practice of house and estate agents when a house or premises were let for three years or less, to charge a commission of 5 per cent., but as in this case, when the lease was for 21 years, they were entitled to charge 7 per cent. It was the custom of all large firms. At the conclusion of the evidence the judge said that if the defendants undertook to do the work for a commis- sion of 5 per cent, the fact of the plaintiff subsequently getting an extension of lease did not warrant their charg- ing 7 per cent., and his judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff, but without costs. Walton v. Smirke. Lord Mayor's Court, 22 February, 1889. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 144. Commission on introduction of builder Custom of the trade. This was an action brought by Mr. A. Walton, surveyor and auctioneer, carrying on business at 6, King Street, Cheapside, against Mr. S. Smirke, an architect and sur- veyor, carrying on business at Craig's Court, Charing Cross, to recover 50 8s., one year's ground rent of certain houses owned by the defendant on the Bifrons Estate, Barking, Essex, for professional services rendered. The defendant was the freeholder of the estate in ques- tion, and being desirous of building some cottages on it, asked the plaintiff whether he knew of a builder who would undertake to build 24 cottages at 100 each if he advanced 70 per cottage, the balance to be paid by means of ground rents. Plaintiff introduced a builder named Harvey to the defendant, and as the result of certain nego- tiations which ensued, Harvey built the cottages, and the plaintiff's claim was in respect of the introduction thus effected. The plaintiff in his evidence said that the arrangement between himself and the defendant was that he (plaintiff) was to have the first year's ground rent of the houses, which was 2 2s. each. A number of witnesses were 128 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. called to prove that this was the universal custom in such transactions. The defendant denied that he had made any such arrangement. The jury, however, found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Wildey Wright. Waterer v. Horrell. Chertsey County Court, 7 March, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Lushington. Beported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 160. Property put up to auction but subsequently sold by private contract by principal Commission due. Messrs. Waterer and Sons, the well-known firm of auc- tioneers at Chertsey, here sued Mr. Horrell, builder, of Addlestone, for 32 10s., commission and out-of-pocket expenses attendant upon their offering for sale, by public auction, some property belonging to defendant, who, on entering the box, said he admitted all the claim with the exception of the commission charged. It appeared that the property was duly advertised and offered for public sale, but failed to reach the reserve, being afterwards sold by defendant to a Mr. Smith. This person was called and deposed that he had offered defendant a price for the pro- perty before it was put up for sale. The defendant asserted that the property was " solely sold " by himself to Mr. Smith for 675 before it was put up for auction. His Honour observed that it was clear that Mr. Waterer had a great deal to do with the sale, and that Smith's name was given him as a buyer, and gave judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount. Messrs. Paine and Brettell were the solicitors for the plaintiffs. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 129 Davis v. Dent. High Wycombe County Court, 5 March, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Whigham and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 160. Revocation of authority to sell. In this case the plaintiff was an auctioneer carrying on business in London, and he sought to recover from the defendant 7 10s. commission on finding a purchaser for him of the Mason's Arms public-house at Wycombe, of which the defendant was then the tenant. The plaintiff had charged 5 per cent, commission on 150, which was the sum the defendant obtained for his business. The plaintiff had an agent in Wycombe named Taylor, and he and Dent came into communication, the result being that Pent put the Mason's Arms into the hands of the plaintiff to sell. The plaintiff found a purchaser, but the negotia- tions entered into were not carried out, and nothing came of the matter. The defendant then requested the plaintiff to find another customer for the business, which he did, and the business was eventually sold to a Mr. Matthews for 150. The plaintiff had given an order to view the house to Mr. Matthews, but the defendant subsequently declined to allow the plaintiff to complete the necessary arrangements for the purchase. Taylor in the meantime had a disagreement with the plaintiff, and Taylor and the defendant laid their heads together to do the plaintiff (as he put it) out of his commission, Taylor carrying out the necessary arrangements incidental to the transfer of the business, after the plaintiff had introduced the purchaser. The plaintiff in cross-examination stated that he first had a communication about selling the defendant's busi- ness in November. He advertised it several times, but he could not give the dates. He received 20 deposit from Mrs. Morell, and in consequence of that his clerk took an inventory. He returned to Mrs. Morell 14, and retained 6 for his expenses. The negotiation fell through. On the 5th December he wrote the defendant a letter (which was read in Court), in which occurred the following sen- tence : "I sent the agreement for the sale of your house for you to sign, and as you refused to do so you are 180 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. perfectly at liberty to sell your house to anyone whom you please." This letter was in reply to one he received from the defendant, dated December 3rd, in which the defendant said he " cancelled all business " with witness. At that time witness did not wish to have anything further to do with the matter, but he did not understand that his position as agent was at an end. The defendant never told him that he would have nothing more to do with him. A clerk in the employ of the plaintiff deposed .that on the 27th November lie came down to the Mason's Arms, and on the following day he took the inventory produced for Mrs. Morell. The defendant, however, declined to sign the agreement, saying that it was too stringent. Witness gave an order to view tbe house to Mr. Matthews on the 8th January. The defendant, Arthur Dent, said that in November last he was the landlord of the Mason's Arms, Wycombe. During the month he had an interview with Taylor and the plaintiff in reference to selling his business, and there was a negotiation with a Mrs. Morell, but it was not com- pleted. He wrote to the plaintiff on the 3rd December, asking him what he was going to do in the matter, and he received a letter dated the 5th December, in which the plaintiff said that as witness refused to sign the agree- ment in the case of Mrs. Morell, he was perfectly at liberty to sell his house to anyone whom he pleased. On the 13th December, witness was at the station when the plaintiff arrived by train, and they had a conversation together. Witness told the plait tiff that he " sold him a nice little game " by holding the whole of Mrs. Morell's deposit and not giving witness any of it. Witness on that occasion did not ask the plaintiff to try and find him another customer for the bouse. On January 9th he saw the plaintiff again, and told him that Mrs. Matthews had been down. He produced the order to view, and told the plaintiff that he should have nothing more to do with him. Mrs. Dent said that she remembered the plaintiff and his agent coming to her house. She heard her husband say to the plaintiff that he would have no further transactions with him. The house was subsequently sold to Mr, COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 131 Matthews, who also gave evidence on behalf of the defen- dant, in whose favour a verdict was ultimately given. Mr. J. Bliss appeared for the plaintitf, and Mr. D. Clarke for the defendant. Brightwell v. Parry. Oswestry County Court, 16 March, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Arundel Rogers. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 200. A present in lieu of commission. The plaintiff, a commission agent, carrying on business in Shrewsbury, sought to recover the sum of 55 for com- mission, in getting the defendant, Mrs. Elizabeth Parry, a customer for the purchase of the Plough Inn, and the Victoria Club House, Beatrice-street, Oswestry. The plaintiff had introduced Messrs. Hall and Co., of Wem, who purchased at 2,200, and the claim was for commis- sion on that amount at the rate of 2 per cent., Mrs. Parry, it was alleged, agreeing to pay that amount if plain- tiff secured her a customer. The plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that Mrs. Parry told him that she wanted to sell her public-house, and he took down the particulars, the public-house being let at 60 a year, and she wanted 1,780. She also wished to sell the Victoria Club House adjoining. He entered into negotiations with Mr. Trouncer to buy the property, and met him at Oswestry. He asked Mrs. Parry what she wanted for the property, and she said 1,780 for the Plough Inn aud 550 for the club-house ; but Mr. Trouncer de- clined to have anything further to do with it. He ulti- mately met with Mr. Hall, of Wem, and he offered wit- ness 2,200 for the property, and it was sold to Messrs. Hall and Co. for that amount, the money to be paid in July, 1890. On the other hand, Mrs. Parry, the defendant, said that Mr. Hall bought the house, the money being payable in July, 1890. After the sale to Mr. Hall, she never agreed to give any commission, but told plaintift she would give him 5 when the money was paid. She agreed to give Ki 182 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. John Jones, the auctioneer, of Oswestry, 2 per cent. if he sold the property by auction ; but that was to include advertising and expenses. Joseph Eccleston, clerk, Oswestry, said he was present on the 17th November, with Mrs. Parry and Mr. Brightwell. Nothing was said about commission. Mrs. Parry said if Mr. Brightwell sold her the property she would give him 5 on payment of the purchase money. Mr. Hall, brewer, Wem, said that he bought the premises for 2,200, and gave Mr. Brightwell 5, and he wanted 5 more, as he said he could get noth- ing from Mrs. Parry. The money was to be paid on the 1st of July, 1890, and on this evidence it was submitted for the defence that it was evident that the bargain was for 5, when the purchase-money was paid, and not 2 per cent. His Honour said that he should have to give judgment for defendant, but he thought the plaintiff was entitled to something, and defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the 5 now, instead of in eighteen months' time, each party to pay their own costs. Mr. F. W. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Douglas for the defendant. Ashton v. Bailey. Salford Hundred Court, 21 March, 1889. Before Mr. H. W. West, Q.C., Judge. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. ixxiii., p. 200. Dispute as to amount of commission Agent retaining money paid to him on account. The plaintiff, Miss Ashton, here sued Mr. Bailey, busi- ness transfer agent, Market Street, Manchester, for 17 odd, a portion of the money paid to the defendant as the agent for the sale of a business. It appeared that in June, 1888, she was desirous of sell- ing her business in Moss Lane East, and engaged the ser- vices of the defendant to secure the transfer, the original agreement being that a commission of 5 should be paid on the first 100 of the purchase money, 2 10s. on the second 100, and 1 per cent, on the price of the stock. The business was at first advertised with no result, and COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. subsequently Miss Ashton had an interview with Mr. Bailey, when it was agreed that any amount for which the business might be sold over 150 should belong to the defendant as his commission. The defendant wrote the terms of this new arrangement, as the plaintiff supposed, with a lead pencil on the back of the original memoran- dum, fixing the rate of commission, but on her arrival home Mr. Clarke, the manager, pointed out that the price put down was only 130. Thereupon she informed the defendant that she would accept no such terms and would go back to the original understanding. The words on the back of the memorandum were then erased. In Septem- ber one or two interviews took place at the shop, at which both parties to the suit and a Mr. Telfourd, who desired to purchase the business, were present. In the course of the last interview, at which Miss Ashton said she wanted 160 for the business, Mr. Telfourd made an offer of 140, and the defendant said that to induce a transfer he would forego5 of his commission. Miss Ashton was then appealed to to make some concession, and ultimately fell in with an arrangement to take the 140. Of this sum 20 was paid to the defendant on account, and it was to recover the part of this amount that she alleged to be due to her that plaintiff brought the action. For the defence it was urged that it would be unreason- able to suppose that the defendant made an offer to forego 5 of his commission when, according to the plaintiff's story, the total sum he was to receive for his three months' work in connection with selling the business was only to be 7 12s. The re&l facts of the case according to the defen- dant were that Miss Ashton, in the first instance, wanted 160 for the business, that it was finally agreed that the defendant should receive 30 commission and bear the whole expenses of the transaction. In his evidence the defendant stated that after advertis- ing the business for a time without result he asked Miss Ashton what was the lowest price she would take for it, and she ultimately decided that she would take 130 and agreed to the arrangement, the terms of which were entered on the back of the memorandum to the effect that the business was to go for 160, the commission to be 30. 134 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. At this point the Recorder called the defendant's atten- tion to the existence of his agreement to take 5 on the first 100, and the result of his observations was a state- ment by the defendant's representative that if the jury were satisfied that - the original agreement was to be adhered to it was no use for him to try to carry the case further. The jury intimated that they were of that opinion, and the judge said he agreed with their view. The verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff. Mr. Yates appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. McKeane for the defendant. s Clark v. Haines. Lord Mayor's Court, 22 March, 1889. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 221. Agrnt retaining fhytosit Claim for money had and received Counter-claim for commission. The plaintiff, Mr. E. H. Clark, a restaurant proprietor, residing at Camden Road, sued the defendant, Mr. J. J. Haines, an auctioneer and commission agent, carrying on business in Red Lion Square, Holborn, to recover 32, money had and received by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant set up a counter-claim for 17 10s., com- mission on the sale of a restaurant formerly the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was formerly the proprietor of a restaurant situate at Castle Street, Falcon Square. Being desirous of disposing of the business he applied to the defendant to find him a purchaser. Defendant did so, and the business was sold for 300. The terms agreed upon between the parties were that the defendant was to be paid 5 per cent, on the amount of the purchase money. Upon the sale beinR effected the purchaser paid defendant 30 as a deposit, and subsequently paid the balance to the plaintiff. Afterwards the defendant sent in an account for 22 11s. 6d. for his services. This the plaintiff refused to pay, on the ground that the charge was excessive, and as COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 135 he was unable to obtain payment of the 30, lie now sued for that amount, together with 2 handed to the defendant for the purpose of advertising the business. The defence was that besides introducing a customer de- fendant had made an inventory of plaintiff's goods, for which he was entitled to 3 3s., in addition to which he had several times attended at the solicitor's office, and had accompanied the plaintiff to Harrmgay Park for the pur- pose of inspecting some other property which he contem- plated purchasing. The plaintiff's case was that this work was included in the agreement. The jury found for the plaintiff for 15 4s. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Daniels; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Clavell Salter. Izard and Dawe v. Baseley. City of London Court, 19 March, 1889. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 221. Purchaser alleged to be known before agents' introduction Oath against oath. Messrs. Izard and Da we, of Cannon Street, here brought proceedings in order to obtain from the defendant, Mr. Gr. J. Baseley, of Canonbury, the sum of 9 16s. for selling a business on his instructions. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant gave them instructions to sell his business. They communicated with a Mr. Cropp. who ultimately fiecame the purchaser at 175. The defendant said he knew the purchaser before the plaintiffs introduced him. When he saw him in the presence of the plaintiffs they could not come to terms. Negotiations were afterwards re-opened by himself (the defendant), and they agreed to purchase at 175. The learned judge said he thought the plaintiffs' ser- vices were the means of bringing about the purchase, but the defendant swore that it was subsequently brought about by himself and he must find for him. Mr. Green hill appeared for the plaintiffs. 186 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Prebble v. Tufnell. Lambeth County Court, 2 April, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Powell. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 241. Commission recoverable where there has been no default on the part of the agent, but t ha principal revokes his authority. The plaintiff in this action was an architect and sur- veryor, carrying on business at Brixton, and the defendant resided at- Portsmouth, and acted as agent for Miss Eobinson, a lady well-known in the town. It appeared that Miss Eobinson had purchased some land, on which she proposed to erect buildings on a similar system to those already existing. For the purpose of carrying out this scheme it was found necessary to raise some money by a mortgage on the property, and accordingly the plain- tiff was brought into communication with the defendant. It was agreed that if the plaintiff succeeded in procuring the money, he should be paid a commission of 1 percent, on the amount raised. The sum proposed to be raised was 16,000 ; but the plaintiff, on calculation, did not think the security was sufficiently good, and recommended that 10,000 should be raised on the old buildings, and the additional 6,000 on the new ones when they were completed. Ihis proposal was adopted, and the plaintiff proceeded to negotiate for the loan. But before the nego- tiations were completed, the defendant revoked the plaintiff's authority. Under these circumstances the plaintiff claimed 21 as due to him for his services, which the defendant refused to pay on the ground that the money had not been raised. Evidence was called on behalf of the plaintiff to prove that the money would have been forthcoming had the matter been proceeded with. The learned judge said he was of opinion that under the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to recover, in- asmuch as it was not from his inability to raise the money that it was not obtained, but from the defendant's revocation of Lis authority to raise it. If A. B. a&ks C. D. to procure him a loan, and C. D. finds a lender, but A. B. breaks off the negotiations and refuses to take the money, can C. D. sue for remuneration for services which have COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 137 become abortive through no fault of his own ? This was practically the question in the case, and he must give judgment for the plaintiff with costs. Thompson v. Hammond. Derby Court of Record, 9 April, 1889. Before Mr. Lawrence, Q.C., Recorder. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 261. A bonus recovered as well as commission. The plaintiff in this action was Mr. Frederick Thomp- son, commission agent, and the defendant was Mrs. Jane Hammond, of Whitaker Street, Derby. The claim was for 110, being commission, &c., on the sale of a public- house effected by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, and the facts of the case were that in January, 1888, Mrs. Hammond was the owner of the Spread Eagle public- house, situated in JRivett Street, Derby. She was desirous of selling i(, and accordingly it was put up for sale by auction, but failed to reach the reserve placed upon it. Shortly after this she met Mr. John Keys, a retired hop merchant, and a gentleman well-known in Derby, and entered into conversation with him respecting the public- house. She said she thought it ought to fetch the amount she wanted for it namely, 700. He promised to see someone who he said would doubtless help her in the matter. Shortly afterwards Mr. Keys met Mr. Thomp- son and told him of the conversation he had had with Mrs. Hammond, the result being that the plaintiff called on her. At that interview she empowered him to sell the Spread Eagle for 700, and agreed tu allow him 1 per cent, on that amount. It occurred to the plaintiff that he might obtain more than 700, and he asked defendant, if he succeeded in doing so, whether she would be willing to give him half of anything he got over 700 within three weeks. She promised that she would do so. In the end the plaintiff succeeded in selling the Spread Eagle for 900 to the Burton Brewery Company, aud in due course made a claim for 110 to the defendant 10 for commis- sion, and 100 being half the amount above 700 realised by the sale of the property. The defendant, however, 138 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. through her solicitor, repudiated the claim for 100, but tendered the sum of 10 in settlement of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintilf declined to accept the amount ten- dered, and now brought an action to recover the whole amount. The plaintiff and Mr. John Keys gave evidence in sup- port of the claim, after which it was contended for the defence that the account given by the plaintiff of the offer made to him by the defendant was a mistaken one. What Mrs. Hammond really offered was that if he suc- ceeded in getting a little say 25 or 80 over 700 for the house, she would give him half the amount. She had no idea of making him a present of anything like 100, and consequently when the claim was made she at once repudiated it. The large sum claimed was an un- reasonable one, and was quite out of all proportion to the services rendered. Mrs. Hammond had never been desirous of behaving in an unreasonable manner, and was willing even now to make a small present to the plaintiff if the jury thought he was entitled to it. Mrs. Hammond was called for the defence, and denied that she ever contemplated making a present to the plaintiff of anything like 100. She told him that if he made 25 or 30 above 700 she would nor mind giving him half. However, she never for a moment intended to go beyond that. Other witnesses were also called, and the Recorder, in summing up, said that though the claim was a large one, the agreement alleged to have been entered into betwern the parties was such as one might reasonably suppose to have existed. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff' for i,he full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Wightman ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Hexteill. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 139 Stutely v. Weller. Sheerness County Court, 15 April, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Selfe. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 280. Property taken out of the hands of one auctioneer and placed icifh another Alleged custom of the trade A custom must be general and notorious Revocation of authority. This was an action brought by Mr. Edward Stutely to recover 39, auctioneer's commission. It appeared that the plaintiff was engaged by two gen- tlemen named Kasner and John to sell certain leasehold property. Nos. 68, 70 and 72, High Street, Mile Town, and a plot of land in Hope Street, Sheerness, upon certain terms. The plaintiff advised as to the reserve price, mea- sured the property, drew the particulars,, issued the pre- liminary advertis Q ments, and did everything that was re- quired. The sale, for no assigned reason, was taken out of his hands, and the property was sold by Messrs. Marler and Bennett, of Sloane Street, S.W., one of whom was a relative of the parties. Plaintiff's measurements and par- ticulars were used by these gentlemen, as was also the reserve price he put upon the property. The price realised for the property was 1.560, which was 60 in excess of the reserve, and it was argued for the plaintiff that he was entitled to his full commission just as if he had disposed of the property. He stated that he would call two auc- tioneers of experience who would say that it was the custom of the profession to charge full com mission if an auctioneer was properly instructed and the sale was withdrawn from his hands. The plaintiff deposed he had had 25 years' experience as an auctioneer, and had been a licensed auctioneer for 22 years. In April last year he met Mr. Kasner and Captain John by appointment at the Britannia Hotel, and was em- ployed by them (they acting as agents for the defendant) to sell certain leasehold property. He was to receive 2 per cent, commission on the price obtained, and 7 the costs of the sale. He advised a reserve price of 1,500 on the property. An agreement wa<* duly drawn up as to his charges, and he was instructed to get out the particulars and issue the preliminary advertisement. After the 140 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. first issue of the preliminary advertisement, he received a letter from Messrs. Edwards and bou, solicitors to one of the beneficiaries under the will, in consequence of whicii he called on Mr. Brightman, the solicitor for the vendor. He had received no instructions iroin Mr. Edwards, and therefore did not consider himself in any way bound by his letter. Mr. Bi ightman communicated with the ueien- dant, and the result was he was instructed to withdraw the advertisement, and nothing further was said about the matter. A fortnight or tnree weeks alter Messrs. Marler and Bennett otfered the property lor sale. He knew of no other reason lor the change oi auctioneers, except that, as he had heard, Mr. Bennett was related to one of the panics interested. Before tins he liad mea- sured all the properties, and had prepared the particulars. He was asked to let Marler and Bennett have tnein, and he did so, together with a rough plan ol the property. Marler and Bennett sent him a dozen bills to be distributed and his name was at the bottom as one of tne parties from whom particulars and conditions of sale could be obtained. The particulars on the bill were not quite so full in detail as he prepared them, as he advised tne sale in three lots, but it was alterwards decided to sell the property in one lot. He attended tne sale of the property at tne Mart, London, and saw several bheeruess persons present, to some of whom he had previously introduced the property. He could not tay whether any of them made bids ; tne bidding was done by a nod of the head. The property was sold for 1,560. It was the custom oi the trade when an auctioneer was instructed to sell property, and had prepared particulars, advertised it, &c., lor him to receive commission in lull if it were subsequently taken out of his hands and sold by another auctioneer. He nad never had such a case himself, but had reau of them. Cross-examined by counsel, the plaimiff said no terms were fixed in case of the property not being sold, as he nad clients who he was sure would buy it. When the sale was taken out of his hands, if he remembered rightly, he said to Mr. Brightmaii, " What about my commission ? " He heard from Mr. Brightmaii Mrs. \Veller had asked whether she would have to pay two auctioneers, and he told Mr. Brightnian she would have to pay him. in COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 141 October the defendant offered him two guineas, which he refused to accept. He would not give them the particulars for that sum, let alone advising them as to the reserve price. He thought Mr. Bennett was going to do the work cheaply on account of being a relative. He sent in his account when the settlement took place in connection with the property. Mr. Henry Charles Wood (of the firm of Wood and Kirby, Bedford Kow, London), an auctioneer, of 12 years' experience, and also Surveyor for Tooting, said he con- sidered that under the circumstances narrated by Mr. Stutely. the auctioneer was entitled to the whole of his commission, in accordance with the custom of the trade. He had had no case himself of such a description, but if he had been treated in such a way he should have claimed in full. Mr. Alfred T. Randall said he had had 25 years' ex- perience as an auctioneer in London and Chatham. In such circumstances as Mr. Stutely had detailed, the auc- tioneer was always paid in full. The usage was well known among solicitors and auctioneers. For the defence it was contended the 5 which had been paid into Court was quite sufficient to meet all the claims Mr. Stutely had upon the defendant. The defendant had a perfect right to revoke her authority for the sale, and she was only liable for the value of the work which had been done, and for any expenses incurred by the plaintiff. He submitted that the idea of charging full commission on the amount realised did not occur to the plaintiff when he was in communication with Mr. Brightman, or he would have mentioned the fact. By not doing so he had abandoned his right to claim full commission. The defendant had never objected to pay a reasonable sum for his services. The judge was asked to say in accordance with the deci- sion of Lord Denman in Rainy v. Vernon that the custom was so notorious that the party entering into the agree- ment must have known it, but even plaintiffs own witnesses did not say the custom was known beyond the profession and among solicitors. The learned judge summed up at length. He did not think the plaintiff was entitled to full commission, as the purchase was not obtained through his intervention, the 142 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. sale being withdrawn at an early stage of the proceedings. If a purchaser was introduced to the property by the adver- tisements, &c., oi the auctioneer, and instead of going to the auctioneer, went direct to the vendor and purchased it before the sale, then he considered the auctioneer would be entitled to full commission. In the present case he considered the defendant had a right to revoke the sale, and the question arose as to the amount of compensation Mr. Stutely was entitled to for his services. The defendant first offered the plaintiff the miserably inadequate sum of 2 2s. and had now paid 5 into Court. He did not con- sider 5 by any means sufficient remuneration for the work Mr. Stutely had performed. It should be remembered that the greater portion of the work was done by plaintiff. His measurements and particulars were adopted thus saving Marler and Bennett the necessity of sending down from London to do this work and the defendant had also the advantage of a local auctioneer's opinion as to the reserve price. There was therefore very little to do except to offer the property at the auction mart and knock it down to the highest bidder. He should therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for 15. Mr. A. K. Norman appeared for the plantiff, and Mr. E. Layman was counsel for the defendant. Lumley v. Bekstein. Westminster County Court, 17 May, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 371. Alleged agreement to pay auctioneers a fee " whether business was done or not." This was an action brought by Messrs. E. and F. Limiley, of St. James's Street, Piccadilly, the defendant being a manufacturer of pianos in Berlin. The claim was for 25 work done. A member of the plaintiffs' firm deposed that in the latter part of 1887 the defendant's manager, a Mr. Max Linlar, called at his office, and intimated that Mr. Beck- stein, whose London manager he was, was desirous of purchasing premises in the West-end of London for the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. purpose of starting business in that locality. Instructions were then given to the plaintiffs to do their best to procure suitable premises. Acting upon these instructions they went to a great deal of trouble, inti'oducing Mr. Max Linlar to a number of different premises which they thought likely to suit, among which was the Brunswick Hotel,. Hanover Square, the price of which was 26,000. It was at that time agreed between the plaintiffs and Mr. Linlar that a minimum fee of 25 guineas should be paid to the plaintiffs for their trouble, whether any business was done or not, and if the plaintiffs succeeded in finding a building which the defendant approved of, they were to be paid a sum of 180 guineas, in which case the 25 guineas would not be charged. The defendant's manager expressed his satisfaction with the Brunswick Hotel, and thought it a most suitable building, but considered the price rather high. He would, however, he said, write to his principal in Berlin, giving particulars of the building, and would let the plaintiffs know the result. Shortly after that the plaintiffs received a communication from the defendant to the effect that he had purchased new premises in Berlin,, and had given up the idea of opening up business in London. It was not until a year afterwards that the plaintiffs sent in an account for the 25 guineas according to agreement. This account was returned shortly after- wards by the defendant, who repudiated the claim alto- gether. In cross-examination, the witness said that it was a usual charge for house agents to make. There were many agents^ in London who would not go out of the office unless a preliminary payment or retaining fee was made, and 25' guineas was the usual charge. For the defence Mr. Max Linlar deposed that he was the London agent to the defendant. It was perfectly true he went to the plaintiffs and gave them the instructions mentioned. He also undertook to pay them the sum of 180 guineas provided they found him premises which would be suitable for his business. As to the sum of 25 guineas, he never dreamed of making such a promise ; what he did say was that if suitable premises were found it would be advisable to employ an eminent architect to report upon the stability of the buildings, and for that he would be 144 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. willing to pay 25 guineas. That, however, was never done, BO his principal declined to pay. The judge said in his opinion the claim was absurd in the extreme. He had never before tried such an action. It was most improbable that a man would undertake to pay 25 guineas without any consideration. The verdict would be for the defendant with costs. Wharton v. Smith. Lord Mayor's Court, 29 May, 1889. Before the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 394. An auctioneer acting as agent must accept his principal's limit as to price. In this case the plaintiff, Mr. H. G. Wharton, auctioneer and surveyor, of 1, Gresham Buildings, sought to recover the sum of 20, being commission on 800, the price agreed upon as the purchase money of ground rents belonging to the defendant, and arising out of property at Fulham. He called as a witness Mr. Osman, who said that at the time of the transaction in question he was acting as solicitor for the defendant. That gentleman wished to sell some ground rents, and he asked witness if he could get him 800 clear of all expenses. At the time witness had a little business with the plaintiff, and he mentioned the matter to him, the price being put at 800 nett. The plaintiff, it appeared, had had an offer of 820, being 800 and 20 his commission. For the defendant it was submitted that upon this evidence there was no case to go to the jury, as according to the plaintiff's own showing the defendant wanted 800 clear of all expenses, and the highest offer was only 820, from which had to be deducted the plaintiffs commission and solicitor's expenses, which did not leave a clear 800. As a matter of fact that offer was not accepted, and no sale was effected. After some discussion the jury were asked to express an opinion as to the terms agreed upon between the parties, and they found that the defendant arranged with the plaintiff to accept 800 clear of all expenses, and on COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 145 this finding judgment was entered for the defendant with costs. Mr. L. E. Glyn was counsel for the defendant. Copping v. White. Westminster County Court, 27 May, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 394. A seller justified in making his choice between two buyers One house agent ivorking for another. In this case the litigants were both estate agents and auctioneers, and the circumstances were somewhat uncom- mon. The plaintiff carried on business as a house and estate agent, at 50, Green Street, Grosvenor Square, and the defendant was also a house agent, a member of the firm of White, Druce and Brown, of 9, Brooke Street. The defendants being desirous of disposing of the lease of the house No. 83, Green Street, communicated with the plaintiff, and offered to pay him a commission of 5 per cent., that being the usual basis upon which one house agent did work for another if he found a purchaser. Sub- sequently the plaintiff did obtain a client, who was pre- pared to accept the defendant's terms. The defendant accepted the client, but afterwards, for some reason or other, declined to complete. Therefore, the plaintiff having fulfilled his part of the contract, in procuring a willing tenant, now claimed the commission due to him, as it was no fault of his that the matter was not com- pleted. The plaintiff, Mr. William Copping, was called, and said that in the early part of last year the defendant asked him to assist them to find a purchaser for the house in question, which he undertook to do on the terms stated. Subse- quently he introduced to the defendant a Mrs. Parker, who was willing to take over the lease. The defendant agreed to accept Mrs. Parker's offer of 275 as soon as the assignment was effected. On the following day the defendant's solicitors, Messrs. Boyce and Son, wrote and 146 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. suggested that instead of assigning the original lease to Mrs. Parker, it would be better to prepare an under-lease. The plaintiff proceeded to give evidence as follows : I replied immediately to the effect that the terms had all been agreed between us, and that I should decline to alter them. I also said that the proposed purchaser was a thoroughly reliable person. On the following day I re- ceived another letter from Messrs. Boyce, stating that they thought my objections were groundless, and that an under- lease could in no way be detrimental. Therefore then clients would decline to depart from the suggestions made. On the following day I called on Messrs. Boyce, and, after considerable discussion, it was arranged that the lease should be assigned on the terms which had been pre- viously agreed. I gave Messrs. Boyce two references, and they then said they would put the contract in hand at once. On April 1st I again called on them to see how the matter was proceeding, and was astonished when they told me that they had felt constrained to advise their client to accept another offer. I complained very much of the treatment to which I had been subjected. In reply to my question, Mr. Boyce said the offer which had been accepted was not so good as the first one. I went to Mr. White directly and complained of his treatment, to which he replied that he supposed he could do what he liked with his own house, and if he could get a better price for it he had a right to do so. I replied that Mr. Boyce had told me the price was not so good, to which Mr. White replied, " Mr. Boyce knows nothing about it." Cross-examined the plaintiff stated : I did suggest that the assignment should be drawn up in Mrs. Parker's name and not that of her husband. I did so because the husband wished it, as Mrs. Parker had a separate estate. It was not suggested that Mrs. Parker might get into difficulties, and be unable to pay the rent. No such observation was ever made by me, or in my hearing. His Honour the judge said that where an authority was given under a contract to buy or sell, and that authority was afterwards revoked, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, but there was no evidence in this case to show that that was so. There appeared to be two persons COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 147 willing to take the house, one of whom was introduced by the plaintiff, and the other procured by the defendants themselves. He thought the defendants were quite justi- fied in making their own choice. The plaintiff would, therefore, be non-suited, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Moreton Smith ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Tyrell Paine. Crocker v. Wilson. Lord Mayor's Court, 22 May, 1889. Before the Assistant-Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 419. The agent tlie efficient cause of sale. The plaintiff, Mr. G. B. Crocker, a chemist's transfer agent, carrying on business in Walbrook, sued Mr. J. Wilson, a chemist, of Chislehurst, to recover 15, being commission at the rate of 15 per cent, on the first 100, and 2 per cent, afterwards, on 500, the amount of the purchase-money of defendant's business, known as The Pharmacy, Hornsey Rise, which the plaintiff alleged he had sold to the present owner, Mr. E. Chubb, by instructions received from the defendant. The business in question was put into the plaintiff's hands for sale on October 10th. He advertised it on eight occasions in a trade journal, and made other efforts to obtain a purchaser. Several persons were sent to view, and ultimately Mr. Chubb bought the business for 500. The plaintiff's case was that Mr. Chubb purchased the business entirely through his instrumentality, and that the first intimation he had of the business being for sale was when he saw the advertisement of the plaintiff, although it was admitted that prior to any communication passing between the plaintiff and Mr. Chubb, a chemist's traveller, named Ponting, gave information of the business to Mr. Chubb. This gentleman admitted, however, in cross- examination, that at the time he knew of no particulars of the business beyond the number of years the lease had to run. A number of letters were put in in support of the 148 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. plaintiff's case, the first, dated November 20th, from Mr. Chubb to the plaintiff, asking for particulars of the busi- ness advertised. On November 22nd plaintiff replied to this letter, forwarding particulars and an order to view. The particulars enclosed were as follows: " Light retail dispensing and prescribing business ; annual return, 750 ; rent, 60 ; price, 650 ; or offer," and the vendor's reason for wishing to dispose of it was that he was about to pur- chase a share in a large business where he served his apprenticeship. On December 3rd Mr. Chubb wrote defendant, stating that he had considered the matter, and that the highest offer he could make for the business was 500. Defendant accepted this offer, and on Decem- ber 13th he wrote to the plaintiff as follows : " Dear Sir. I have sold my business to Mr. Chubb, of Wigmore Street. I was obliged to take the 500, cash down, so as to get out at the end of the month. I saw a letter from you to Mr. Chubb, dated a few days after we commenced to nego- tiate, but he was introduced to me by a traveller. If, in settling up, I should require your assistance, I shall be glad, if in my power, to get it done through you. Thank- ing you for your trouble, which I shall partially requite, I am, &c., J. Wilson." Plaintiff replied to this letter, stating that he should look to the defendant for his com- mission, as it was through his instrumentality that it had been purchased. In cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that he advertised the business as being in the N.W. dis- trict, although really it was in the N. district. He did this because the former district was more attractive than the latter. Mr. Chubb, in his evidence, said the first he knew of the business was when he saw the plaintiff's advertisement in the Plumnaceutical Jmtrnal. The defence \vas that Mr. Chubb was introduced to the defendant by Mr. Ponting, who in his evidence said that he spoke to Mr. Chubb about the business some days prior to November 20th, when the first letter passed between him and the plaintiff. He added that he ex- pected a commission on the transaction from the defen- dant, who had promised him a "recognition " if he found a purchaser. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 149 The jury found for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Fillan. Theobalds v. Salaman. Lord Mayor's Court, 23 May, 1889. Before Sir Thomas Chambers, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 419. Rate of commission where builder found and ground rents created Custom of the profession. This was an action brought by Mr. W. Theobalds, an architect and surveyor, of 26, Budge Row, against Messrs. Salaman, of 46, Monk well Street, land owners, to recover 150, the amount of a year's ground rents of an estate known as Beech Cottage Estate, Brook Green, Hammer- smith, which, plaintiff alleged, he was entitled to as com- mission for introducing a purchaser of the estate to the defendants. Defendants denied liability, a.nrl in the altarnative paid 52 10s. into Court. The plaintiff had been in the habit of introducing builders to the defendants for their estates, and alleged that he received instructions from them to find a purchaser for the estate mentioned, no fixed commission being mentioned in respect of that estate. He consequently put himself into communication with various builders, and ultimately introduced a gentleman named Howell to the defendants. The result of the intro- duction was that an agreement was entered into between Howell and the defendants, whereby the former undertook to build houses and to create ground rents, paying the defendants 150 a year for them. Plaintiff now claimed the first year's ground rent as his commission, and called several witnesses to prove that this was the usual custom in such cases, including Mr. R. G. Worley, surveyor, of 46, Cannon Street ; Mr. C. A. Richards, auctioneer, of 15, Walbrook ; and Mr. Von Holfen, in the offices of Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater. The defence was that the services of the plaintiff had 150 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. not been instrumental in bringing about the purchase of the property, and that some time prior to the plaintiffs introduction Mr. Howell himself had been in negotiation with the defendants for the purchase of the land. This was admitted by the plaintiff, but it was contended that these negotiations had fallen through, and that through the intervention of the plaintiff he had been induced to increase his offer of 2,800 to 4,500, which sum he ultimately paid for it. Mr. Walter Stair, architect and surveyor, 9, Queen Victoria Street, said as a rule the commission was a ques- tion of arrangement, but he should consider in this case fifty guineas reasonable. Half-a-year's rent was a usual commission, and a year's was the maximum. Mr. Richard Ellis (Ellis and Son), 49. Fenchurch Street, said that commission varied according to circumstances. In this case he should say that half-a-year's commission would be quite ample. Mr. B. Tabberer, district surveyor for Greenwich, agreed with Mr. Ellis. Mr. Lang, of the firm of Jones, Lang and Co., auc- tioneers and surveyors, King Street, Cheapside, said that in a ground rent of this kind the commission would vary from half-a-year to a year on the first 100, and half-a- year on the remainder. The commission on 150 a year would vary from 75 to 125. The jury found a verdict for 150, the plaintiff's claim in full, and judgment was delivered accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Lewis Glyn (instructed by Mr. Hughes) ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Bassett Hopkins and Mr. Lazarus (instructed by Mr. Emmanuel). COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 151 Rogers v. Waterer and Sons. Chertsey County Court, 30 May, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Lushiugton. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 419. Action between touse agents No absolute agreement between the parties Correspondence conducted by telegraph. This was an action brought by plaintiff, a house agent, of Walton, against Messrs. Waterer and Sons, the estate agents and auctioneers, of Chertsey, Walton, and Wey- bridge, to recover 16, which he alleged was his share of commission on the sale of certain property. It appeared that the defendants in February, 1889, had some property to dispose of for a Mr. Fadling. Plaintiff wrote to them, asking if they would allow him half their com- mission if he introduced a purchaser. On February 2nd defendants wrote plaintiff, offering one-third the commis- sion, provided the client he introduced was not one with whom they had previously been in communication. On February 7th plaintiff obtained an offer of 1,030 for the property from a Mr. Quelch. He telegraphed this to defendants, and asked for half the commission. Defen- dants wired back to the effect that they would allow half the commission provided the intended purchaser had not communicated with them previously, and they requested plaintiff to send particulars of the offer. Plaintiff posted such particulars, which reached defendants at Chertsey on the 8th. In the meantime, however, defendants' clerk at Walton had closed an offer with another gentleman for 1,000. It was contended for the plaintiff that both offers should have been submitted to the vendor and that the defendants, having received plaintiff's offer, were precluded from taking a lower sum. The learned judge, howerer, pointed out that the second offer might be better than the first, and that the defendants did not bind themselves to accept any offer. A letter from the defendants to the vendor was put in, in which they requested him, in justice to themselves, to call at the office and investigate the 152 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. matter. They assured him that the clerk at Walton knew nothing of tie prior offer, and had acted, as he believed, in the interests of the estate. It was submitted that know- ledge at the head office affected all the branch offices. For the defence the vender's instructions to the defen- dants were produced, which were that the property should be sold to whomsoever first offered 1,000, and Mr. Clarence Waterer stated that the letter enclosing: the par- ticulars of the offer was not, to the best of his belief, delivered at Chertsey until the morning of the 8th. It had not been delivered when he left the office on the evening of the previous day, and it was opened with the other letters about 10 a.m. on the Bth, and W. L. Bradley, the clerk at Waltcn, ws called to state at what time the con- tract was signed at Walton, which he said was about ten o'clock on the morning of February 8th. He did not first communicate with the gentleman who signed the contnct, nor was he sent for. In giving judgment, the learned judge laid it down that the general law on the subject was that when an intending purchaser was introduced to an outsider by a land agent, and the person to whom he was introduced refused from caprice to accept him as a purchaser, then the agent was entitled to his commission. In the case before him two land agents were concerned, and the question was whether the defendants were bound by the telegraphic correspon- dence to accept plaintiff's offer. He held that there was no absolute agreement between the parties. The corre- spondence was conducted by telegraph, and in communica- tions of that kind the law and ever} body must read between the lines. It could not be that defendants under- took to accept any offer from any man. Defendants had acted perfectly straightforwardly in the matter; nothing at all could be alleged against them to entitle plaintiff to a verdict. He, therefore, found for defendants. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. T. C. Jarvis ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Horace Avory. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 153 Moore v. Solomon. City of London Court, 19 June, 1889. Before Mr. Eegistrar Wild. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE,' Vol. xxxiii., p. 476. No commission recoverable ivhere the plaintiff is himself the purchaser. The plaintiff, Mr. Abraham Moore, an auctioneer, sued the defendant, Mr. Lewis Solomon, an architect, of 55, New Broad btreet, to recover 4 10s. commission at the rate ot 2|- per cent, on the sale of certain land. The plaintiff said that the defendant was the owner of the Staines Lodge Estate, Ashford, and that he (plaintiff) had sold two lots Nos. 4 and 5 of this estate, on which defendant promised to pay him the usual commission of 2^ per cent. The purchase had been completed, but defendant had declined to pay ; hence the present action. In the course of cross-examination a document was put in, signed by the plaintiff, in which he acknowledged him- self to be the purchaser, and on this the defendant's representative asked for judgment for the defendant, as it was perfectly clear that the plaintiff himself was the purchaser, and that he had no ground for the claim. He admitted that defendant had promised to pay the com- mission if plaintiff found him a purchaser, but as he had purchased it himself he was not entitled to it. In answer to the learned judge, plaintiff said he had bought the land for a client who wished his name con- cealed, and thereupon judgment was given for the defendant. Mr. E. B. Tattershall appeared for the defendant. Gill v. Burbidge. Marylebone County Court, 27 June, 1889. Before his Houour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiii., p. 514. Indirect introduction of purchaser Green v. Bartlett. In this action Mr. Edwii Gill, auctioneer, of Kilburn, sued the owner of 52 and 51 Clifton Hill, St. John's 154 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Wood, to recover 20. amount of commission en tbe sale of the house No. 54, Clifton Hill, for 700. Tht; plaintiffs case was that in September, 1888, the defendant had instructed him to find tenants for the houses Nos. 52 and 54, Clifton Hill. In the beginning of October, a Mrs. Magnus, among others, called on plaintiff to know particulars of No. 54. She was informed that the rent was 55, but offered 60 on condition that repairs were done. The defendant would not, however, lay out so much money, so Mrs. Magnus, through plaintiff, offered to buy the house. But defendant, by letter, refused to sell then. The negotiations, however, did not drop ; several letters passed between plaintiff and defendant, and between plaintiff and Mrs. Magnus, defendant again writing that she had no intention of selling. But in January, 1889, Mrs. Magnus, having obtained of the plaintiff defendant's address, persuaded her to sell, and the actual sale took place early in February. The plaintiff having learnt that the price was 700, sent in his account for 20 commis- sion. This the defendant refused to pay, and this action was brought. Mr. Gill, Mr.jHarry Mead, his manager, and George Hub- bard, clerk, gave evidence. In cross-examination, Mr. Gill admitted that he had called on Mrs. Magnus and that she denied owing her introduction to him, but said that she obtained defendant's address from a caretaker. There was, however, an entry in the call book to the effect that Mrs. Magnus had called and had been given the vendor's address. The plaintiff's counsel having quoted the case of Green v. Bartlett, it was contended on the other side that as Mr. Gill had no instructions to sell, and that as Mrs. Magnus denied having been intro- duced to the vendor by the plaintiff, the latter could not claim payment for doing what he had no authority to do. It was urged that Gretn v. Bartlett did not apply, as in that case the auctioneer had instructions to sell, and a case was quoted where the auctioneer had instructions to sell, and had introduced a person who thought of buy- ing, but the matter dropped through, but was renewed after some months and the purchase took place. In the mean- COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 155 time the agent had had his authority to sell revoked, and it was held that he had no claim for commission. The defendant gave evidence in support of her case. His Honour, in giving judgment, said that the plaintiff must recover. The facts seemed to him to be that through the plaintiff's action the purchaser was introduced to the vendor; and, therefore, he should give judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs. Mr. Scarlett was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Eussell appeared for the defendant. Harman Brothers v. Nowell. City of London Court, 9 July, 1889. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 54. Loan not really procured by agent. This was a claim by Messrs. Harman Brothers, auc- tioneers, of Aldermanbury, for 4 4s. commission for pro- curing a mortgage loan. It appeared that in February, 1887, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to buy a house at Stoke Newington, for 520, and -paid 5 deposit. By the agreement the plaintiffs were to procure a mortgage for 400, the defendant representing that he could obtain the other 120. He was unable to do so and the contract fell through. A fresh contract was then made verbally, the plaintiffs undertaking to procure the 520, and it was for doing this that the plaintiffs sought to recover four guineas commission. Mr. Harman gave evidence to the effect that after the first contract fell through, it was entirely through him that the 520 was obtained. He wrote several letters and had many interviews on the subject. Defendant told him that he did not want to go to his solicitors himself and therefore witness went to them (Messrs. Boxall and Boxall, of Chancery Lane), and arranged the mortgage. Mr. Boxall stated that after several interviews with the plaintiff, a mortgage for 520 was carried out, the money 156 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. being advanced by a client. It would not bave been done bad it not been for Mr. Harman. Tbe defendant stated tbat be himself went to Mr. Boxall and arranged the loan. Mr. Boxall wanted to know particulars as to the property, and he therefore asked Mr. Harman to see him. He never entered into any verbal or any other agreement but the first one with the plaintiff. The 120 was ready at any time, but it never was asked for. He admitted that the 520 was got for him, but it was by his own instructions after the plaintiffs failed to get the 400. The jury found for the defendant. Mr. Tattershall appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Armstrong for the defendant. Harris v. Luckes and others. Monmouth Assizes, 22 July, 1889. Before Baron Pollock. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 78. Sale not brought about by original introduction Chain broken. The claim was originally one for 1,500 for work and labour done, and services rendered by the plaintiff to the two sets of defendants (Mr. Luckes, a commission agent at Bristol, and Messrs. Davies and Co., also commission agents at Bristol) in reference to the sale of a Newport brewery at 2| per cent, on 60,0'JO, but it turned out afterwards tbat the price was 65,000, so that the claim was increased to 1,625, with interest. On April 29, 1888, Mr. Luckes wrote to the plaintiff asking if he could open negotiations for the sale of any breweries in his district, as a client of his (Luckes) wanted to get hold of one large one or several small ones, and had a capital of about 100,000 or 200,000 to put out. If he (plaintiff) could secure any they might make a few hundreds each. The plaintiff saw Mr. Searle, of the Castle Brewery, early in September, 1888, and learnt that he might be willing to dispose of his business, and on September 15, Mr. Harris wrote to Mr. Luckes that " one of the principal breweries in South Wales would be willing to sell or transfer to a company if arrangements quite satisfactory to them could COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 157 be made." Subsequently Mr. Harris wrote that the books of the firm would be open to inspection, and Mr. Luckes wrote back afterwards agreeing to pay him 1 per cent, for introducing the business a month after the allotment of shares. Mr. Harris then disclosed to Mr. Luckes the name of Messrs. Searle and Herring, of the Castle Brewery, Newport, and stated that Mr. Searle was the person who would have to be consulted. Up to that time neither Mr. Luckes nor Davies and Co. knew the name of the firm, and it was contended that it was a clear case of introduction to them on the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Harris, who also informed them that Messrs. Searle and Herring did about 200 barrels per week and sometimes more, and that they had about 50 tied houses. Subsequently Mr. tfarris wrote to Mr. Luckes, stating that his (Mr. Harris's) friend, Mr. Russell Evans, who was acting in the matter, thought he (Mr. Harris) ought to get 2 per cent, for his introduction of the business to Mr. Luckes, and then thought that the defendants ought to get a handsome margin out of the transaction. It appeared that both the defendants were receiving 5 per cent, from Mr. Russell Evans for carrying the transaction through. Mr. Luckes, however, wrote to Mr. Harris asking him if he would prefer receiving the 1 per cent, certain or joining in a participation of 6 per cent, divided between five. On October 27th a letter was written to Mr. Harris stating that in consideration of having introduced to the defendants the Castle Brewery they agreed to pay him 2^ per cent. This agreement, it was found, was unstamped, and to make it admissible the penalty of 10 was paid. It was alleged that ultimately the defendants went behind Mr. Harris's back and treated with Messrs. Searle and Herring direct. They made a large sum of money, but did not offer to pay ,plaintiff a single farthing. The plaintiff in cross-examination admitted that he did nothing in the matter after November 4th. He understood that Mr, Russell Evans was the broker for the syndicate. He examined Messrs. Searle and Herring's books, but contented himself with looking at the balances. He saw Mr. Searle about six times. It was he who went to Mr. Searle, and not Mr. Searle to him. 158 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. Richard Searle, senior partner in the firm of Searle and Herring, said the plaintiff first spoke to him about the sale of the brewery, but it was Mr. Willey, the Newport manager of the National Bank of Wales, who introduced him to Mr. Luckes. He and his junior partner declined to sell to Mr. Harris in September. Mr. Russell Evans had nothing to do with the sale, and he did not know the name of Messrs. Davies and Co. before the sale was com- pleted. In giving judgment his lordship said that he considered that the action failed as against Mr. Luckes, and he dis- missed him from the action. With regard to Messrs. Davies and Co., if by any continuity of events a contract was really founded upon the original introduction, the agent who made that introduction was entitled to recover. But the plaintiff brought the negotiations to an end in November by writing that the brewery would not sell, and when the defendants replied making further inquiries and suggesting that he (plaintiff) might be able to do some- thing more towards bringing the parties together, the plaintiff did not take the trouble to answer. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the agency was distinctly broken off, and the judgment would be for the defendants costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Jelf, Q.C., and Mr. Ram ; counsel for Mr. Luckes : the Hon. A. Lyttleton ; counsel for Messrs. Davies and Co. : Mr. A. T. Lawrence. Beard v. Shephard. Lord Mayor's Court, 29 July,1889. Before Mr. Roxburgh, Assistant- Judge. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 101. Claim for commission and advertisements Ao sale no pay. This action was brought by Mr. Arthur Beard, at one time a member of the firm of Randall, Beard and Baker, to recover the sum of 23 18s., work done for the defendant, Mr. Deputy Shephard. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 159 The plaintiff said be was instructed by the defendant to endeavour to obtain a purchaser of a wine and spirit busi- ness in Chancery Lane which the defendant was desirous of selling. He inserted advertisements and went to certain trouble, and could have obtained a purchaser, but this he was unable to do because the figures supplied him about the business were, as he alleged, misrepresented. They were not figures which he could vouch for. In cross-examination, he denied that he would be en- titled to the commission for which he bad sued only in the event of a sale. The defendant's evidence was to the effect that, except as the son of Mr. Deputy Beard, he did not know the plaintiff. He might have seen him somewhere, but he hardly knew him when he called upon him and asked to be allowed to try and sell the business. He never had any nego- tiation with the plaintiff before then. The plaintiff brought with him a letter of introduction from witness's son. He told the plaintiff he might dispose of the business if he could, and if he did he would be paid the usual commission. If he did not sell it he would be paid nothing. He told him that most distinctly. He never gave the plaintiff any authority to. insert any advertisements. There was never any sale. In the course of the hearing, the plaintiff offered to give up his claim to commission, and to accept his expenses only, but even on this, part of the case the jury were unable to agree, and they were discharged. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Rockingham Gill ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Vennell. Noble and another v. Tipping. Manchester Assizes, 29 July, 1889. Before Mr. Justice Stephen. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 120. Liability for commission denied Defence of partnership set up. The plaintiffs, Mr. J. H. Noble and Mr. Mark Water- house, claimed 175 commission at 2 percent, on 7,000, the purchase-money of a mill bought by the defendant. Mr. Waterhouse carried on the business of an auctioneer 160 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. in Ashton-under-Lyme, and first saw the defendant in December, 1888. The latter was the son of a gentleman who had large spinning mills at Hurst, in the neighbour- hood of Ashton, and he said his father was going to set him and his brother-in-law up in a mill. He subse- quently asked the plaintiff to find him a mill of 18,000 or 20,000 spindles, and promised him a good commission. Mr. Waterhouse mentioned the matter to Mr. Noble, who carried on a considerable business in valuing mills and machinery in Oldham and Manchester. Mr. Noble had been engaged in valuing the Oakwood Mills at Romiley, and he informed Mr. Tipping that the mill was about to be sold. He explained to him the value of the mill, and pointed out that it was a good investment. The defendant bought the mill for 7,000, but had refused to pay any commission to the plaintiffs. The plea set up by the defendant was that the mill was bought by a co-partner- ship, and that the defendant was one of the firm. Mr. Mark Waterhouse, broker and valuer at Ashton, one of the plaintiffs, said that in December, 1888, the defen- dant asked him to find him a mill of 18,000 to 20,000 spindles, and promised him a good commission. Witness gave the defendant information about two mills, which, however, did not suit him. Witness mentioned the matter to Mr. Noble, and the latter conducted the arrange- ments respecting the Oakwood Mills. The defendant did not say they were to get their commission from the vendor. Mrs. Waterhouse gave evidence as to the conversation at the first interview her husband had with the defendant. Mr. John H. Noble, mill valuer, of Oldham and Man- chester, stated that Mr. Waterhouse asked him to assist him in finding a mill for the defendant. Witness was subsequently engaged in valuing the machinery at Oakwood Mills, Romiley, which was to be broken up. He visited the defendant, and was with him two hours explaining the value of the mill. The defendant said he would have to consult his brother-in-law, and that he would afterwards write to witness. He told the defendant that if he could get the mill for 7,000 it would be a good bargain, and that in that case witness would require a handsome commission. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 161 He instructed the defendant as to whom he was to apply to in the matter. He afterwards learned from the news- papers that the defendant had bought the mill for 7,000. They claimed commission on the amount at the rate of 2| per cent. The defence in substance was that it was not through the plaintiffs that the mill had been bought. Mr. Tipping said he remembered Charnock coming to him with Mr. Waterhouse, and asking; for commission just for telling him that the Waverley Mill was for sale. He wrote to Mr. Greaves, who would take no notice of the introduction. Charnock again came to him for commission, and witness was very indignant about it, and told him that he would not give it. He afterwards complained to Waterhouse about his bringing in Ciiarnock, and also told Waterhouse that if he bought a mill on his information, he (Waterhouse) must get his commission from the seller. He added that if he got a mill cheap, he would not mind giving him a trifle in addition. Witness saw the advertisement in the papers about Oakwood Mill, and went to see it before hearing a word about it from the plaintiffs. He again inspected the mill with his brother-in-law, Mr. Plant. At the auction witness bid 1,000 for it, but the auctioneer would not accept the bid. He afterwards offered 5,000, but that led to nothing. Mr. Dawson, the liquidator, afterwards told him that if 7,500 were offered, he would advise the directors to accept it. Some time afterwards Mr. Noble told him that he was employed to value the mill, and wished to be allowed to buy it for witness. He said he could do nothing until he had seen his brother-in-law. After seeing Mr. Plant, they decided to have nothing to do with Mr. Noble. They bought the mill on the 2nd April for 7,000. In cross-examination defendant stated that when Mr. Noble saw him he said he had been called in to value the mill, but he was not sure he said he had valued it. He said he thought it was worth about 17,000, but he did not know that he named 7,000 as a safe price to give. He mentioned several sums. He did not know where Mr. Noble was to get his commission from, or who was em- ploying him. Witness offered the 7,000 on Mr. Dawsun's 162 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. recommendation on the 5th April, and Mr. Dawson saw him on the 28th March. Mr. James Dawson, accountant, Union Street, Oldham, said he was appointed liquidator of the Oakwood Spinning Company, and the defendant got into communication with him on the day of sale. The company wanted 9,000, and defendant offered 5,000. The negotiations con- tinued for some time, but witness never heard of Noble or Waterhouse in the matter. He thought 1 per cent, would be the ordinary commission on 7,000. He suggested that 7,000 should be given for the mill. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, and his lordship gave judgment accord- ingly, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Addison, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton (instructed by Mr. D. E. Griffiths); counsel lor the defendant : Mr, Bigham, Q.C., and Mr. Byrne (instructed by Messrs. Collier and Carver). Chilman v. Rowbotham. Guildford County Court, 23 July, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Vernon Lushington. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 121. Commission on sale of hotel Custom. This action was brought to recover 20 which had been paid to the defendants as a deposit by a proposed purchaser of the plaintiff's property known as the Ship Hotel, Farn- ham. The defendants admitted having received 20 ; they had paid 10 into Court, but contended that they were entitled to keep the other 10 for their charges and commission. Mr. Rowbotham was called, and deposed to receiving instructions from the plaintiff to sell to Mr. Richardson the Ship Hotel, Farnham. In pursuance of these instruc- tions he prepared an inventory, which was afterwards submitted to the parties. It was the custom of the trade that if the purchase went off by default of the purchaser, they were entitled to deduct their expenses from the deposit. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 168 Cross-examined, the witness said he did not know that Mr. Folker was acting as agent for Mr. Chilman previous to his entering into the matter. He did not tell Mr. Chilman that the preparation of the inventory and valua- tion would be no expense to him. In a conversation with Mr. Folker the latter did not tell him that there was some mistake in the agreement, as his name was not inserted as representing Mr. Chilman. The plaintiff was then called, and stated that, wishing to get rid of his hotel at Farnham, he saw Mr. Folker, whom he instructed to prepare an inventory on his behalf, which he did. Witness never instructed Mr. Bowbotham to prepare an inventory for him. On the question of custom, Mr. John Bullen was called, and said he had previously had many years' experience in the business, but he certainly never heard of the custom spoken of by Mr. Rowbotham of the agent receiving com- mission if the purchase fell through by default of the purchaser. The agent sometimes charged a small sum perhaps a guinea for preparing the inventory. His Honour then said that upon this evidence he should not allow commission, but he was disposed- to allow the defendants a sum of 1 10s. for the expense they incurred. Judgment was then given for 18 10s. Mr. Ferrell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Eve for the defendants. Kirk v. Evans. Queen's Bench Division, 28 October, 1889. Before Baron Pollock. Reported ESTATES, GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 365. Sale of land for building purposes When is commission earned Custom. The plaintiff, a surveyor, carrying on business in Mark Lane, City, was employed in April, 1885, to sell a piece of land for building purposes, belonging to the defendant, at Baker Street, Enfield. He found a purchaser in a Mr. Wright, who commenced operations, but, for some reason or other, never completed the building of the eighteen projected houses. After a correspondence, the defendant M2 164 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. paid some 18 in sums of 10 and 8, to the plaintiff in respect of his commission, and this action was brought in March, 1889, to recover 82, the balance of 100, com- mission alleged to have been earned. According to the plaintiffs case this was payable as soon as the agreement was signed by the parties, and the above sum was calculated on the basis of one year's maximum ground rent. But the defendant said that no such commission was due until the land had been covered and ground rent had been created for his benefit. There was a strong conflict of evidence on the point as to which custom pre- vailed, and several architects, surveyors, and engineers were called on either side in support of their respective contentions. At the conclusion of the evidence his lordship said the case depended on which custom had been established of those attempted to be set up. It must be taken that the defendant had made no admissions in the correspondence to take himself out of the custom. He came to his con- clusion not without some difficulty ; but regard must be had to the general rule that commission was earned when the contract was obtained. This was the general rule in the case of commercial contracts, and those for the sale of goods, and was quite apart from the solvency of the purchaser or his power to perform his contract. He thought commission did not become due by merely getting a man to sign a paper, but getting a man to do something whereby the landlord was enabled to earn his rent that is, building the houses. He said this with the full belief that the plaintiff's witnesses had given their evidence honestly. On the whole, therefore, he thought the custom was to pay the commission in these agreements not when the agreement was signed by the parties, but when leases were granted and ground rent accrued after the houses were built. There would be a verdict and judgment for the defendant, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. E. 0. B. Lane ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., and Mr. Tatlock. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 165 Taplin v. Barrett. Queen's Bench Division, 6 November, 1889. Before Mr. Justice Mathew and Mr. Justice Wills. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE,VO!. xxxiv., p. 386. Introduction of possible purchaser Revocation of authority Commission not due. This was an action by the plaintiffs, a firm of house agents, against Mr. Wilson Barrett, to recover commission for an alleged sale of a house. The defendant had employed the plaintiffs to sell a house for him on commission. After waiting three months with- out a sale having been actually effected, he put the house up to public auction. Prior to the auction, however, Mr. Simonds had been introduced by the plaintiffs as a possible purchaser, but he had made various stipulations, and did not complete the purchase. At the auction, Mr. Simonds bought the house for 1,800. The plaintiffs sued for their 2ijr per cent, commission. The county court judge gave them judgment for 5 only, apparently as a remuneration for their expenses and labour in connection with the mutter. Against this decision they appealed. It was contended for them that the defendant was not entitled to revoke the authority he had given to the plain- tiffs, and that a sale having been effected, the commission was due. Wilkinson v. Alston and Ireland v. Lii-imjstone were cited. Mr. Justice Mathew, after hearing counsel on the other side, upheld the decision of the county court judge, He had had to say whether the contract with the defendant was that he should pay the commission to the plaintiffs whether the sale took place by public auction or not. If that was intended to be the contract, it should have been made clear. The county court judge did not find it to be so. Had it been so, Mr. Barrett would have drifted into a position in which he would be liable to pay two commis- sions, one to the plaintiffs and one to the auctioneer. The county court judge was entitled to hold that this was not intended. He found that the authority to sell had been revoked. He had then to say what the damages were to* 166 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. be. He thought that 5 was enough to pay. The appeal must be dismissed. Mr. Justice Wills was of the same opinion, and in giving judgment observed that the county court judge had held that the case of Prickett v. Bailyer applied rather than Wilkinson v. Alston. The defendant had prevented the plaintiffs from carrying out the sale. It might be treated as a revocation of authority, or as a breach of contract. The judgment of the judge involved this view of the facts, that it was doubtful whether but for the auction Simonds would have bought at all. It was urged for the plaintiffs that Wilkinson v. Alston was against the county court judge's decision, but in that case there had been no new intervention, such as a sale by public auction, but the sale was the consequence of the trouble taken by the plaintiffs. Counsels for the plaintiffs : Mr. Horace Kent ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. C. E. Jones. Gallinger v. Wilkinson. Derby County Court, 12 November, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Barber. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 406. Amount of commission due Conflict of evidence. The plaintiff in this action was George Gallinger, house and estate agent, St. Peter's Churchyard, Derby, and the defendant was Mrs. E. C. Wilkinson, of Curzon Street, Derby. The action was brought to recover the sum of 32, the amount of commission alleged to be due to the plaintiff on the sale of the Great Northern Inn, Henry Street, Derby, by the instructions of the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he was a property agent, and first came in contact with John Wilkinson, the defendant's son, and went with him to the Derwent Hotel, of which Mrs. Wilkinson was the landlady. Wilkinson introduced witness to his mother, and told her that she could not do better than entrust the sale of the Great Northern Inn to him. She said she should be very glad, and added that the price would be 2,000. He told her that his charge would be 2 per cent, commission. At her request John COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 167 Wilkinson afterwards took him to the Great Northern Inn, and showed him over the property. He took notes of what he saw, and made a general survey of the property. He arranged with the tenant of the house to allow intending purchasers to go over the premises. Witness afterwards wrote a number of letters to brewers and other likely people, and from time to time reported the result of his communications to Mrs. Wilkinson. He eventually came across Mr. Marriott, whom he had known as a substantial man, and a likely purchaser of property. The result was that an appointment was made for the 18th December, at the Bell Hotel. John Wilkinson, Mr. Marriott, and witness were present at the interview, and they were afterwards joined by Mr. J. Close, solicitor, and Mr. Cummings, solicitor. John Wilkinson first told him that Marriott had made an offer of 1,500 for the Great Northern Inn, but he added, " I told him I could do nothing without you." Eventually Marriott made an offer of 1,600 for the house, and John Wilkinson went out to see if his mother would accept that sum. When he returned, he said, " We can accept the 1,600, and your commission is all right." Witness thereupon instructed Mr. Close to draw up a preliminary contract for the sale of the pro- perty, and that was done. The sum of 50 was deposited with John Wilkinson by Mr. Marriott. There was never any suggestion made that John Wilkinson was entitled to half the commission until after the action was entered. Cross-examined : He would swear that after leaving the Derwent Hotel nothing was said by John Wilkinson about their dividing the commission. Mr. John Buxton Marriott also gave evidence. For the defence, Mrs. Elizabeth Charlotte Wilkinson, of Wilson Street, Derby, stated that she recollected Mr. Gallinger being in the Derwent Hotel at the time she was having some conversation with her son respecting the sale of the Great Northern Inn. She would swear that Mr. Gallinger never took part in the conversation, and that nothing whatever was said to him by her about the sale of the property. She never on that occasion, nor on any other occasion, spoke to him or gave him any instructions with reference to selling the property. 168 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. John Wilkinson spoke to being with Mr. Gallinger at the Derwent Hotel, and to their talking about the sale of the property with his mother. He denied that his mother ever said anything about commission to plaintiff. He would swear that there was an understanding between himself and plaintiff that they should share the 2 per cent, commission. There was never any suggestion during the negotiating that Mr. Gallinger was to have the whole of the commission. At the close of this witness's examination, his Honour asked the defendant's counsel which of his witnesses he was to believe ? There was the evidence of the mother and also of the son, and they were in direct conflict. He was sorry to have to say so, but Mrs. Wilkinson's evidence was far too strong a pill for him to swallow, and it seemed to him that the fairest thing to do would be to dispense with the evidence of the mother and son, and take it that the plaintiff's evidence about resembled the truth. Mr. John Close and Mr. Henry Cummings, who were present during a portion of the Bell Hotel interview, were called to prove that on that occasion they gathered the impression that John Wilkinson, and not the plaintiff, was the real agent. Mr. Hextall then addressed the judge on behalf of the defendant, contending that plaintiff had not shown that he was employed by Mrs. W 7 ilkinson, and that he was not entitled to recover the whole of the 2 percent, commission. Whatever he was entitled to he ought to look to John Wilkinson for it. His Honour in giving judgment acquitted the defendant of any wilful intention to deceive the Court, but added that he would rather say no more about that part of the case. He was of opinion that there was some corroboration of the plaintiff's statement that he was employed to sell the property, but he thought he had failed to prove that his commission should be 2 per cent. Under all the circumstances he thought the plaintiff would be well remu- nerated by a verdict in his favour to the amount of 20. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Dominic Daly (instructed by Mr. Briggs) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Hextall (instructed by Mr. J. Close). COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 169 Bull v. Hebden. Isle of Wight County Court, 21 November, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Leonard. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 446. Commission on letting a furnished house Disputed retainer. The claim here was for 5 per cent, commission, amount- ing to 10, on the first year's rent of Clarence Tower, Ventnor, which the plaintiff alleged was let on his intro- duction to a Mrs. Morritt, who had asked him to get a furnished house for her. Mr. Bull's case was that it was the custom of house agents always to look to the owner of a house for their commission. They never charged the person who wanted a house, but the custom was to have a list of houses on their books, and when a person applied to them they furnished him with the list, and when suited charged the owner of the house. It was the lessor and not the lessee who paid commission. The facts, according to the plaintiff, were that a Mr. and Mrs. Morritt had applied to him for a house, and as he knew that Clarence Tower was sometimes let, he called there on a Saturday in May. He did not see Mrs. Hebden, but she sent down word that she did not wish to let the house, &nd he left. On the Monday, however, Miss Hebden called on him, and said her mother had re- considered the matter and he was to call again. He did so, and had a long interview with Mrs. Hebden, who showed him over the house. While there Mrs. Morritt called, and he was asked to go into another room. After waiting about an hour the servant brought word that Mrs. Hebden would not detain him any longer. The house was let to Mrs. Morritt, but when he asked about making out an inventory, according to the usual custom, he was told that someone else was going to do that. He considered the house was let through his introduction, and, according to usual custom, he claimed commission from the lessor. Cross-examined : Mrs. Hebden did not ask him to find a tenant. Miss Hebden did not merely call to ask the name of his client. She did not say that her mother did not want to see him. He did not persist and say he would 170 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. come. He told Mr. Morritt that he had an appointment About Clarence Tower. Mrs. Hebden told him on the Monday that she did not wish to let the house. He really did not know how much the house was let for. He did not ask to see over the house. Mr. Kitson, house agent of Ventnor and Southsea, was called to prove that it was the usual custom to charge the owner of a house commission for letting it. He had never charged a client who wanted a house. It was a custom throughout the trade to have a list of houses on their books, and if one was let through an introduction to charge the owner commission. He thought Clarence Tower was on nearly everybody's books. Cross-examined : He had never in his life heard of an instance where the owner declined to pay for letting his house. Mr. Morritt was really his customer, and he had arranged to let him a house. Mr. Morritt had arranged to call and sign the agreement for Avon House, but on the way he met Mr. Bull, who told him of Clarence Tower. Mr. Morritt told witness that Mr. Bull was going to get it for him, and witness replied that he was sorry for that, as he should lose his commission. In opening the defendant's case, his representative said that Mr. Bull was not Mrs. Hebden's agent, and as a fact Messrs. Pittis and Son were the real persons who let the house. Mr. Bull was told that the house was not to let, but because Miss Hebden called out of curiosity to know who wanted the house, Mr. Bull thought he had an open- ing to do some business. Mr. Bull was never employed by Mrs. Hebden, and, in fact, was not employed to act in the matter at all. Mrs. Hebden said Messrs. Pittis and Son were her agents. She told Mr. Bull that she did not wish to let the house, and when Mrs. Morritt called she was annoyed. When a tempting offer was made her through Messrs. Pittis and Son, she accepted it. Miss Hebden and Mr. Wetherick, a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Pittis, also gave evidence. In the result, the judge, having taken time to consider the whole facts, found for the defendant. Mr. Hooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Estcourt for the defendant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 171 M'Leod v. Artola Brothers. Queen's Bench Division, 25 November, 1889. Before Baron Huddleston and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 467. Alternative claim Commission or quantum meruit -Special contract. In this action plaintiff claimed to be paid by the defen- dants certain commission in cash and the transfer to him of certain debentures in the Anglo-Vasco Navarre Railway Company, under an alleged contract with them. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed 5,200 for work and labour done, and for moneys expended at the defendants' request in negotiating a certain loan on their behalf, and on either alternative damages for breach of contract. The defendants alleged that the terms of the contract were that commission was only to be paid if he actually succeeded. The defen- dants pleaded that the plaintiff had not fulfilled the special terms of the contract, which were that unless he succeeded in obtaining the loan required by the defendants he was not to be paid anything, and could not, therefore, recover damages as claimed upon a quantum meruit. Upon these pleas issue was joined. The plaintiff was a financial agent, and the defendants the contractors for the construction of the Anglo-Vasco Navarro Railway, in Spain. The contract was to procure advances to carry out the work, and was contained in a letter of December 15, 1887. The plaintiff was to endeavour to obtain for the defendants an advance of 120,000. on and upon securing which he was to receive 1 per cent, or 1,200, and 4,000 in debentures of the company. The plaintiff had accordingly put the matter before several financial gentlemen, and had submitted three separate schemes to the Defendants for obtaining the required advances. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had prevented his succeeding in his negotiations, and so earn- ing his commission, by obtaining the money from another source. He stated, in examination-in-chief, that he honestly believed that if the matter had not been taken out of his hands, he would have procured the advance by the means he was pursuing. He deposed to certain interviews 172 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. at which, he said, the defendants had promised that his agreed position should not be altered in any event ; but in cross-examination he admitted that that meant that the original terms of the contract of May 18 should hold good with reference to all three of the schemes he had submitted for the purpose of financing the railway. The defendants called no evidence, and Mr. Baron Huddleston, in summing up, told the jury that where parties entered into a special contract they were bound by its special terms. He referred the jury to the plaintiff's own letter of December 15, 1887. which, he said, contained the terms of the contract. Those terms were, that if the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the loan of 120,000 he was to receive 1 per cent, upon that sum and 4,000 debentures in the proposed company ; and if he did not succeed he was to get nothing. That was the bargain. The plaintiff had not, in fact, succeeded, and he now sought to recover damages by way of quantum ntcndt, alleging that the defendants had in effect rescinded the original contract. In dealing with the law upon this question, his lordship referred to tie Bernard y v. Harding and Prickett v. Bmlt/er, distinguishing the latter case from the case he was trying by pointing out that in it Mr. Justice Williams, when giving judgment for the plaintiff, had said : " I am anxious it should not be supposed that the Court intends to lay it down as a general rule that, where an agent is employed to sell property, and his authority is revoked before anything has been done under it, he is at liberty to resort 10 the common courts lor his labour in finding a purchaser." The question for them was, there- fore, whether in this case the defendants had by the course which they had taken in effect revoked the original con- trac ; . If they had not, the parties were still bound by its special terms, and if, on the evidence, they were of opinion that the plaintiff had not succeeded under its terms, their verdict would be for the defendants. The jury found for the defendants, and judgment was given accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Bucknill, Q.C., and Mr. Ruegg ; counsel for the defendants: Mr. Channell, Q.C., and Mr. G. C. Cope. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 173 Daniels v. Bailey. Hanley County Court, 12 December, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Gordon. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 506. Commission on valuation Disputed rate. In this action Mr. C. J. Daniels, auctioneer and valuer, sought to recover from Messrs. Bailey, Morgan and Hackney, manufacturers, Hanley, the sum of 20 10s., commission upon the valuation of the plant and stock-in- trade of a manufactory in King Street, Hanley, occupied by the defendants, and 3 3s. for endeavouring to obtain a partner for the firm. The sum of 5 had been paid into court. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendants were carrying on business in Hanley, as manufacturers and decorators of china and earthenware, and Hackney being about to leave the firm, the plaintiff was engaged to value the plant and stock-in-trade, and he agreed to do so for a commission of 5 per cent, upon the amount of the valua- tion. He was occupied six days in making the valuation, which amounted to 409 2s. Id. After Hackney had retired from the firm, the plaintiff, at the request of Bailey and Morgan, endeavoured to obtain them another partner, in which he incurred considerable trouble and expense. The claim was for the services thus rendered. The case for the defendants was that there were no terms agreed upon for the valuation, and that the charge of 5 per cent, was excessive, professional evidence being called to show that the usual terms were 5 per cent, for the first 100, and 2|- per cent, on the remainder. His Honour thought the probabilities of the case were in favour of the plaintiff, for whom he gave judgment for 21 (including 10s. for his services in endeavouring to obtain a partner), with costs. Mr. Ashmall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Boddam (instructed by Mr. Simpson) for the defendants. 174 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Martin v. Knight. Lord Mayor's Court, 13 December, 1889. Before Sir W. T. Charley, Q.C., and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 525. Commission on the sale of a public-Jwiise Custom of the trade. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against Mr. Knight, a public-house valuer and auctioneer, of 69, Finsbury-pavernent, to recover 19 3s. 4d., balance of commission due on the sale of a public-house. The defendant paid 13 6s. 8d. into court. The plaintiff's case was that he had called upon defen- dant and introduced to him a Mr. Bishop, who was desirous of disposing of a public-house, situated atDalston, called the " Wayland Tavern." The price asked was 6,400, " all at," which meant^that the fittings and fix- tures were to be included in the sale. The defendant's remuneration, if he succeeded in selling the house, was to be 150, of which the plaintiff was to have 50 or one- third. A purchaser was found, but when the plaintiff applied to the defendant for his share of the commission, he was offered a cheque for 30, which he refused to accept, pointing out that the defendant had received 135 from the vendor, and 52 10s. from the purchaser 187 10s. in all and that he (plaintiff) was entitled to a third of that sum, 62 10s. The plaintiff ultimately accepted the cheque for 30 on account, which left a balance due to him of 32 10s. After deducting the sum paid into court, the amount in dispute was 19 13s. 4d. The defence was that only 130 was received by the plaintiff from the vendor, and that the plaintiff was only entitled to a third of this sum, 43 6s. 8d. The allegation that the plaintiff was to receive a third of the momey received from both the vendor and the purchaser was denied, and it was alleged that the money received from the purchaser was only by way of a gratuity, and not as commission. An allegation by the plaintiff that it was the custom of the trade for brokers to pay the person in- troducing the business one-third of the whole profits on the transaction was contradicted. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 175 The jury found for the plaintiff for 6 13s. 4d., in addition to the sum paid into court. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Wildey Wright ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lewis Glyn. Sadler v. Edwards. Farnham County Court, 18 December, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Lushington. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 526. Allowing tenant to take possession Agent's commission recoverable The claim in this case was for 24 12s., 18 15s. being for commission upon 250, the rent of a residence called " Waverley Court," Camberley, let by Mr. Sadler on behalf of the defendant, to a gentleman named Monson. The sum of 2 10s. had been paid into court. Letters between the parties were read showing that the rental was fixed at 250. It also appeared that references from influential people were tendered by Mr. Monson and handed to defendant. Four days after the receipt of these by defendant, Mr. Monson arrived at Camberley with his furniture, his house having been burnt, and he (Mr. Monson) took possession, and therefore plaintiff took it that he was accepted as tenant. In cross-examination the plaintiff stated that he did not know that Mr. Monson had not paid his rent. His Honour asked if a land agent had anything more to do after a tenant was accepted, and could not agree with the defendant's contention that he only accepted Mr. Monson subject to his references being satisfactory. Mr. Phillips, land agent, gave evidence of the charges usually made by land agents, and Mr. Sparkes, solicitor, said that Mr. Monson only paid 50 towards the first quarter's rent, and went away before the end of the second. The defendant's counsel urged that Mr. Monson got possession by a trick, and would not enter into a lease, but his Honour said the gentleman was allowed to take posses- sion, and therefore became a tenant, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for 21 19s., including commission, 16 5s., the sum paid into court to be deducted. 176 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. Eve appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Montefiore (instructed by Messrs. Lee and Pembertons) for the defendant. Goodeve v. Coxson. Birmingham County Court, 18 December, 1889. Before his Honour Judge Chalmers. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxiv., p. 526. Rate of Commission. This action was brought by Mr. F. W. Goodeve, of Cannon Street, Birmingham, auctioneer, to recover 10, commission on the sale of defendant's business. Mr. Stubbins (instructed by Messrs. Robinson and Son) was for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Young (instructed by Messrs. Wright and Marshall) for the defendant. It appeared that when the defendant instructed Goodeve to sell his business, Goodeve gave him a form to fill up, which stated that the commission was 5 per cent., but that on sums over 100 special terms would be arranged. Nothing was said to the defendant with regard to the amount of commission, and Goodeve advertised the busi- ness for sale. He had a great number of applications, and replied to them. The business was eventually purchased by a man named Martin, to whom the plaintiff had sent particulars. Plaintiff did not see Martin himself, because Martin went direct to the defendant. When the sale had been arranged Coxson called on the plaintiff, and asked him what his commission for selling the business was, and the plaintiff said 5 per cent, on the first 100, and 2 per cent, on the remainder. The defendant urged that that was too much, but the plaintiff would not take less. Subsequently the defendant tendered him a cheque for 20, stating that Messrs. Hughes and Fleetwood, who also had the matter in hand, and had supplied particulars to Martin at a later date than he, would have been willing to take 20. Plaintiff refused that sum, and in cross- examination stated that the advertising and other out-of- pocket expenses in the case would amount to about 4, and that his profit on the 20 would have been 16 only. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 177 The defendant deposed that when he put the business into Mr. Goodeve's hands the latter undercook to sell it at 2 per cent, on the first 100, and 1 per cent, on the balance. The plaintiff was to value the business for that sum. When Martin bought the business they valued it between themselves, and as Mr. Goodeve's services were not required the defendant went to him and told him that some allowance ought to be made on the commission in respect of the valuation ; and it was arranged between them that Mr. Goodeve should take 20 for his services. The defendant was surprised to find, when the cheque for 20 came to hand, that the plaintiff had changed his mind. The learned judge said he could not believe that a respectable auctioneer would agree to take 20, and then go hack from his word and bring the matter before that Court in the way the plaintiff was alleged to have done, and he gave judgment for the amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Stubbins ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. A. Young. Woods v. Bupchett. Southwark County Court, 23 January, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Holroyd. -Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 67. Introduction Property brought to purchaser's notice by poster. The action was brought by Mr. Thomas Woods, auctioneer, Hounslow, to recover commission on the sale of the houses known as Nos. 1 and 2, Myrtle Villas, 1 and 2, Lansdowne Villas, 1 and 2, Cambridge Villas, 1 and 2, Claude Villas, and 1. 2, 3 and 4, Lansdowne Terrace, Zoar Cottage, Zoar Chapel, and two leasehold ground rents situate at Hounslow. It appeared that in May of 1889 the defendant applied to the plaintiff for his terms, and thereupon the plaintiff alleged it was agreed that if the property was sold he was to have 2 per cent, as commission on the result of the sale, and ten guineas for out-of-pocket expenses ; afterwards reduced to seven guineas by arrangement. On 178 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the other hand the defendant contended that if the property was sold through the plaintiff, the agreed terms were 2 per cent, commission only. The facts of the case as stated by the plaintiffs counsel in opening were to the effect that the plaintiff had posters announcing the sale printed, one of which was hung up in the bar of the Railway Inn, at Hounslow ; and that the plaintiff at that place saw a Mr. Pemberton, and drew that gentleman's attention to the announcement. Subsequently Mr. Pemberton went to Messrs. Saxton and Morgan, the solicitors for the vendor, for further information. A Mr. Fisk, who was chief clerk to that firm, had several inter- views with Mr. Pemberton about the matter. Shortly afterwards the property was sold privately to Mr. Pember- ton, and the plaintiff claimed his commission and out-of- pocket expenses. It was contended by the defendant that Mr. Fisk had first drawn the purchaser's attention to the property, and as he refused to pay the commission Mr. Woods brought the present action. The defendant paid seven guineas into court to cover all out-of-pocket expenses to which the plaintiff had been put, and denied further liability. Several witnesses were called in support of the plaintiff's case, including Mr. Woods, the plaintiff ; Mr. Arthur Woods, his son ; Mrs. Woods, his wife ; Miss Annie Bulley, manageress of the Railway Inn ; Mr. R. Pember- ton, the purchaser ; and Mr. Sudlow Herrick, auctioneer, of Kingston-on-Thames. For the defence, Mr. William Burchett, the defendant, and Mr. Fisk gave evidence. His Honour, in giving judgment, said that with regard to the defendant s contention that it the property was sold the plaintiff was to receive 2 per cent, commission only, he was clearly of opinion that that contention was right, and therefore found for the defendant on that part of the case. In his opinion, the sale was clearly brought about by the plaintiff's agency. A poster was put up at a hotel at Hounslow stating that a sale of certain pro- perty was going to take place. The poster was undoubtedly seen by the purchaser, who, naturally went to the solicitors whose names were at the foot of the bill for further infor- mation. Mr. Fisk might have influenced the purchaser, COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 179 but Mr. Pember ton's attention was first drawn to the property through the poster at the inn. Judgment was therefore given for the plaintiff for 85 5s. 6d. (exclusive of the 7 7s. paid into court) with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Morton W. Smith (in- structed by Mr. H. R. Feake) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. C. J. Peile (instructed by Messrs. Saxton and Morgan). Webster v. Wright. Scarborough County Court, 21 January, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bedwell. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 88. Commission for finding a tenant and on valuation Customary charges. The plaintiff was the tenant of Crossley's Hotel, Scar- borough, and had instructed the defendant to advertise and find a tenant for the hotel, which he succeeded in doing. H e took a deposit of 30 from the new tenant, and acted for the plaintiff in the valuation, which amounted to 411. When asked for his account he made a claim of 31 6s. 6d., being 5 per cent, on the amount of the valuation, 2^ per cent, for finding a tenant, and the re- mainder for costs of advertising. The plaintiff admitted she was liable for 13 14s. The defendant, in examination, said he had been an auctioneer and valuer for thirty years, the last six having been passed in Scarborough ; that these were his usual charges, and he had frequently made similar charges ; and that during the six years he had been in Scarborough he had never completed a valuation nor sent in a valua- tion bill. The principal local auctioneers were called for the plaintiff, and stated that the customary charge for such business was 2 per cent, on the amount of the valuation, 5 per cent, on the first year's rent of the premises, and the costs of advertising. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs. N2 180 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION Richards v. Branscome. Westminster County Court, 29 January, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 87. Bate of commission Bight of agent to employ solicitor. Mr. James Barrow, carrying on business as Richards and Co., auctioneers and estate agents, of Victoria Build- ings, Victoria Station, here sought to recover 14 12s. 6d., being commission at the rate of 7f per cent, for letting furnished apartments at 2, Princes Mansions. The plaintiff was called and said that he had received instructions for the letting from the defendant, who had a lease of the premises for seven years, which was deter- minable at three or five years. There was an unexpired term of about twenty months He accordingly found a tenant. The usual house agent's commission in such cases was 5 per cent, on the first year's rental, and 2^ on the second, but in the present case the rental was an increas- ing one, and f ,o save complications a one year's commis- sion of 7 per cent, was charged. Seven and a half per cent, was the universal commission charged by respectable house agents. A draft assignment of lease was drawn up at the defendant's request, and for that a charge of a guinea had been made. In cross-examination, the plaintiff said he was not in- structed by the defendant personally to employ a solicitor to prepare a transfer of lease, but it was thought advisable to have it properly done. When the transfer was com- pleted it was engrossed on the original lease, in the presence of all parties. The defendant told him to do all that was necessary, and he used his discretion accordingly. Mr. T. W. Walford was called and said he had been for many years in the business. The transfer in question was carried out under his supervision, and it was done quite in accordance with the usual customs of the trade. Before the draft assignment was endorsed, he read it over in the presence ot both the parties. For the defence, Mrs. Clara Branscome said she signed the draft agreement, but at the time she did not know COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 181 what liability she was incurring. The plaintiff's clerk distinctly told her that the charges would be 9, winch would be at the rate of 5 percent, commission, which sum she had paid into court, together with other incidental expenses. In giving judgment, his Honour said he was of opinion that the plaintiff was only entitled t j 5 per cent, commis- sion. It was his place to have advised the defendant, and not to have employed a solicitor to prepare a draft assign- ment, as by so doing he placed the defendant very much at the mercy of the parties who took the premises. It was a very dangerous practice for house agents to employ solici- tors without the consent of their clients, and therefore he should disallow that portion of the claim. He should allow the plaintiff 9 as commission, and 1 2s. which had been expended on advertising, and as this amount was amply covered by the sum the defendant had paid into court, judgment must be for the defendant, with costs. Richards v. Warren. Westminster County Court, 21 January, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 60. Disputed introduction. This was a claim by Messrs. Richards and Company, auctioneers, of Victoria Buildings, Victoria Station, to recover 37 9s. commission due from the defendant, Mrs. Warren, in respect of the sale of a house known as Dent Villa, Bolingbroke Eoad, Wandsworth. The defendant had arranged with the plaintiffs for them to put the house up for sale at the Mart, they having previously attempted to sell it by auction. The day prior to the sale, plaintiffs had an interview with the defendant, and she then stated that she would be willing to accept 775 for the house, if such a bid were made. At the sale the property was bought in at 770. Among the bidders was a Mr. Powell, who was well known to the plaintiffs, and after the sale he was interviewed by their manager, 182 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. Child, and expressed his willingness to buy the- property for 775. Thereupon Mr. Child went direct to Mrs. Warren, and told her that he had found a purchaser at the reserve price, which offer she refused, although she had previously expressed her willingness to take 775. Shortly afterwards it came to the knowledge of the plain- tiffs that Mr. Powell had bought the property through Mr. Andrade, an auctioneer, of Cannon Street. It was contended for the defence that, no sale having been effected by the plaintiffs, 6, the agreed sum in such an event, was all that was due to them, and this amount was paid into court. In support of her case Mrs. Warren was called, and said the plaintiff took no part whatever in the introduction of Mr. Powell, as she had known him previously. Mr. Andrade had negotiated the transfer on her behalf, and by her instructions, and had been paid for his services ten guineas. Mr. Andrade said that in September last year Mrs. Warren told him of her desire ta sell, and said that Mr. Powell would be a likely customer. He thereupon communicated with Mr. Powell, and subse- quently met him in the City, when he agreed to purchase the house for 775. Mr. Powell, the purchaser, also gave evidence to the effect that although he attended the auction it was quite by accident. He remembered having a con- versation with a person whom he now recognised as the plaintiffs' manager, but he certainly never gave him any authority to make Mrs. Warren an offer on his behalf. In summing up, his Honour said the crucial question which they had to decide was did the plaintiff introduce the purchaser '? They must bear in mind that the plaintiffs, according to their story, were authorised by the defendant to let the property go for 775, and yet when they found Mr. Pow 7 ell willing to give that sum, she refused it. The jury immediately found for the plaintiffs, for 37 9s.. the full amount of their claim. Mr. Forman was counsel for the plaintiffs. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 183 Collins v. Hagge. Westminster County Court, 11 February, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 133. Obtaining a tenant Both principal and agents ansiucring advertisement. The plaintiffs in this case were a firm of house agents and auctioneers, carrying on business in Oxford Street and South Audley Street, and their case was that they had received instructions from the defendant to find a tenant for some furnished rooms belonging to her, at '27, North Audley Street. Acting upon those instructions they adopted the usual methods, one of which was to answer advertisements. Seeing an advertisement in a daily paper which they thought likely, they answered it, and the result was that a Mrs. Lyons called at their office, and pro- duced their letter, whereupon they gave her a card to view the rooms. It appeared that the defendant herself had answered the same advertisement, but the plaintiffs con- tended that inasmuch as Mrs. Lyons went to them first, and obtained the order to view, it was they \vho were actually the introducers of the tenant. The result of the interview was that Mrs. Lyons took the rooms for nine months, and the plaintiffs claimed their commission of 5 per cent, on 60 a year. Mrs. Hagge, the defendant, was called, and said she answered an advertisement, and as a result Mrs. Lyons called upon her, and ultimately agreed to take the rooms for nine months, at a rental of 60 a year. When Mrs. Lyons first called on her she told her that she had also called on the plaintiffs, but she (defendant) did not know they had written to her. But even had they not done so, she would have obtained a tenant just the same. Mrs. Lyons was called, and said she had a number of letters in reply to her advertisement. She called on the plaintiffs before she got to Mrs. Hagge, but that was quite accidental. His Honour said he did not think the plaintiffs were entitled to their commission, as it was obvious that the 184 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. defendant would have let her rooms without them. He, however, \Vould give the plaintiffs judgment for one guinea, in consideration of what they had done. Homer v. Rugg. Lord Mayor's Courc, 20 February, 1890. Before Sir Thomas Chambers and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATKS GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 190. Person bidding at auction ultimately purchasing. This was an action brought by Mr. Homer, an archi- tect and surveyor, of 99, Gresham Street, against Mr. Daniel Rugg, an auctioneer, to recover 23 4s., balance of 85 received by the defendant, for the use of the plaintiff by way of deposit on the sale of certain plots of land. The defendant paid 10 Is. into court. The plaintiff was the owner of some laud at Frinton, and instructed the defendant to sell it at a public sale Tvhich he \va about to hold. The defendant's remunera- tion was to be 2 per cent, on the amount realised, and he was also to receive his out-ot-pocket expenses. The de- fendant had about 800 worth of property to sell altogether, and the expenses attending the sale amounted, he stated, to 53. The plaintiff's land was not sold at the sale, but it was subsequently sold by private contract for 350, and a deposit on that amount was paid to the defendant of 35. The plaintiff's case was that inasmuch as the land was not sold at the sale, and eventually sold for a smaller sum than that stipulated, the defendant was not entitled to the portion of the expenses of the sale which he claimed. The only sums, he contended, he was en- titled to were 8 15s. commission and 3 Is. for adver- tising, which, when deducted from the 35 deposit, left a balance in the hands of the defendant of the sum claimed. The defendant's case was that the person who ultimately purchased the land made a bid of 350 for it at the sale, and that it was agreed between himself and the plaintiff a day after the sale that if this gentleman bought the land for 850 by private contract, he (defendant) should be paid COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 185 his expenses and commission. When these sums were deducted from the 85 it left a balance of 10 Is., which had been paid into court. The jury found for the plaintiff for 18 4s., including the sum paid into court. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. G. White ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Buckingham Gill. Southey v. Holloway. Lord Mayor's Court, 26 February, 1890. Before Mr. Hopwood, Q.C., Deputy Judge, and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 190. Commission on loan -Conditions of advertisement. The plaintiff was suing to recover 50, being 2i per cent, commission on a sum of '2,000, which the plaintiff had agreed to procure as a loan on certain leasehold premises. It appeared that the defendant was the owner of certain leasehold premises in the neighbourhood of Gray's Inn, and he advertised for a loan of 2,000 on tbe property. The plaintiff answered the advertisement, and the defen- dant in a letter of October llth, 1889, agreed to pay a commission of 2 per cent, on the amount advanced if the plaintiff was successful in procuring the loan, but declined to pay any preliminary expenses. The plaintiff's case was that be succeeded in finding a Mr. Chapman, who was ready and willing to advance the 2,000, but when the defendant was informed of this fact, he declined to accept the loan. The plaintiff contended that, under the circum- stances, he had done everything to entitle him to the agreed commission of 50. Mr. Chapman, in his evidence, said that if he had advanced the money he should have required the usual procuration fee, and at the close of the plaintiff's case it was submitted for the defendant that there was no case to go to the jury, inasmuch as the plaintiff had failed to prove that he could have performed all the conditions of the advertisement. 186 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. The learned Deputy Judge non-suited the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Harper (instructed by Mr. Clarke) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lewis Glya (instructed by Messrs. Lockyer and Dtmn). Tarn v. Dickins. Bromley County Court, 3 March, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Homersham Cox. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 190. Disputed agreement to share commission. In this case the plaintiff claimed 22 5s., half com- mission on the sale of the Widmore Quinine Works, which he alleged had been promised him by the defendant, an auctioneer of Bromley. The plaintiff stated that on the 24th July, 1889, he was instructed by the vendors of the Quinine Works, Widmore, to endeavour to find a purchaser for them, and was given a commission note. He placed a caretaker in possession, and from inquiries made of this caretaker by a Mr. Henry Podger, that gentleman came to the office of his employers in order to see him, but did not, as he happened to be away on his holiday. On his return he was told of Mr. Podger's visits ; and in September, 1889, the defen- dant came to him to seek information. He told him that a Mr. Cook was the vendor, and told him that he held a commission note from the vendors for the sale of the premises. If he gave him assistance that resulted in the sale of the premises he would expect his share of the commission, and the defendant promised that he would divide it with him. He told the defendant that he could have his commission note if he liked, but defendant said he must have his own commission note. Plaintiff gave him a note of introduction to the vendors, and as a conse- quence he got from them a commission note. Plaintiff some time afterwards saw defendant, when he said that he had entered into negotiations for the sale of the works and had arranged to receive the deposit of 300. The amount of the purchase money was 1,650, Mr. Podger COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 187 being the purchaser. Defendant received 42 10s. as commission. Plaintiff saw him and asked him for his share of the commission, when he said it would be all right. He afterwards wrote to defendant asking him for it, when he refused to give him anything, and said he must refer the matter to his solicitor, as he had not promised him anything. For the defence, it was contended that there was* no promise shown by a letter sent defendant by plaintiff, in which he asked him for some portion of the commission. It was submitted that the plaintiff would have asked for his half-share had there been any such promise as he alleged. Mr. Dickins would have been willing at the time to have made him a present, but he would not do so now. His Honour, having heard the defendant's evidence, said he was of opinion that plaintiff had not made out* his case. The letter mentioned by the defence was wholly incon- sistent with plaintiff's statement. Judgment would, there- fore, be for the defendant, with costs. Haltridge v. The Tunbridge Wells Benefit Building Society. Brentwood County Court, 7 March, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Abdy. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 215. Negotiations broken off New transaction. The plaintiff, an auctioneer, was suing for 25, com- mission on the sale of eleven cottages at Brentwood, which the plaintiff alleged were sold to the purchaser introduced by him. He also claimed interest on the 25. The case rested largely upon the correspondence, of which one letter referred to some other houses, as to which the plaintiff had offered to act as agent. Mr. Catchpole (the secretary of the defendant company) wrote to the effect that the directors had already an agent in Brent- wood ; but if plaintiff "could introduce a tenant or pur- chaser he had every reason to believe his directors would pay the usual commission." Commission to the extent of 188 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 20 was subsequently paid to Mr. Haltridge in respect of that property. In reference to the particular cottages in dispute Mr. Haltridge had a sale of property, and one of the purchasers was Mr. Parker, who liked the houses he bought so well that he wanted to buy some more. Mr. Haltridge, in reply to his inquiry, mentioned the houses belonging to the defendant company on the opposite side of the road. Plaintiff then wrote to the company, and said he thought he could find a purchaser for the houses in Sussex Eoad ; and asked 2^ per cent, commission and 1 per cent, for expenses, if the purchases were completed. Mr. CHtchpole answered that letter, leaving the matter still undecided ; and eventually he wrote again stating that if Mr. Haltridge's client would give 1,20:) for the property, and pay the agent's com mission, he believed the directors would cl6se with him at once. Mr. Haltridge managed ultimately to get Mr. Parker to otter 1,200, but he wanted a free conveyance and would pay no commission. Mr. Haltridge therefore asked the company lor a commission of 25, and hoped the matter would be put through. The directors did not state that they would agree to that ; and, after some further correspondence, the plaintiff said he " supposed the matter must fall through." A month later Mr. Parker bought from the company direct the property in question for 1,200 the precise figure which Mr. Haltridge had got him to offer. His Honour having expressed the opinion that the cor- respondence clearly showed that Mr. Haltridge had with- drawn from the transaction, it was submitted by the plain- tiff's counsel that if an agent brought a purchaser to a vendor, and the vendor, with a view to upsetting the agent's commission, withdrew when they had almost come to terms ; and then they came together afterwards inde- pendently, or were introduced by another party, they were bound, and that that was practically the condition of things here. His Honour, in giving judgment, said he had two points to decide. First, was the plaintiff instructed by the defen- dant company to do work for them in the matter of selling this property ; and, secondly, if he was so instructed, was this sale carried out in connection with that agreement. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 189 As to the first question, it was abundantly clear to him that there was no positive agreement, or anything like it, for the plaintiff to find a purchaser for the defendant com- pany. As to the second question, he held that the pur- chase was not brought about by the plaintiff. There would, therefore, be judgment for the defendant company, with costs. Mr. T. E. Scrutton (instructed by Messrs. Shepherds) appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. W. C. Cripps for the defendants. Richards v. Game, Westminster County Court, 17 March, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 238. Costs of preparing agreements of tenancy included in commission. This action was brought by Messrs. Eichards and Co., of Victoria Buildings, to recover amongst other things the cost of preparing two agreements of tenancy in respect of Nos. 1 and 2, Oxford Villas, Hammersmith. The plaintiffs stated that defendant had paid them 4 5s., being the commission due for procuring tenants, but that she declined to pay the other charges on the ground that they ought to have been included in the charge for commission. There was no custom in the trade to prepare documents of that kind, and then include the cost in the commission. They were always charged a guinea each extra by all house- agents. His Honour said the agent was not entitled to his com- mission until he had made some binding agreement between the parties. It was the duty of the agent not only to prepare agreements, but, having prepared them, to get them stamped. For the defence, evidence was given by a builder to the effect that he had employed any number of house agents to procure tenants for his houses, and had never been asked by them for payment for preparing an agreement of tenancy. It was always included in the 5 per cent, commis- sion. The defendant, moreover,deposed that before any thing was done she distinctly told the plaintiffs that she would 190 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. not pay anything beyond the 5 per cent, commission, and that if the tenants wanted agreements they must pay for them. In giving judgment his Honour said he did not think the defendant was liable to pay for the agreements, and his judgment must therefore be for the defendant. Andrade v. Toleman. Lord Mayor's Court, 21 March, 1890. Before Sir Thomas Chambers. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., L J. 262. Commission recoverable though rent not paid. This was an action brought by Mr. Alexander Andrade, estate agent, against Mr. James Toleman, to recover 5 10s. commission on letting offices on the second and third floors of premises at Walbrook. The defendant, in a letter to the plaintiff, bad said, " If you introduce a tenant I will pay you the usual commission of 5 per cent, on the first year's rental." and he enclosed particulars of the premises to be let. The plaintiff intro- duced a tenant, who, however, failed to pay any rent, and a distraint resulted in a sum of 11 lls. 9d. only being recovered of the 27 10s., the amount due for the first quarter's rent. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff wa.4 only entitled to commission on the amount received, but the jury found a verdict for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Hume Williams. Baker v. Taylor. Woolwich County Court, 3 April, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Powell. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 318. An agent must not make a profit out of his principal. The claim here was for 80, money received by the defendant for the plaintiffs' use, and the action was brought jointly by Mr. Baker and his wife. The latter COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 191 was the owner of some property at Paddington, of which the defendant collected the rents. She sold her Padding- ton property and bought some houses at Westcombe Park. The purchase was effected through the defendant, who, on being asked the lowest price of the houses, stated that the amount was 1,000. That sum was paid, and the plaintiff gave Taylor 10 for his trouble. It subsequently <;am.e to the plaintiff's knowledge that the price asked by the owner of the Westcombe Park property was only 920, and that the defendant had pocketed the remaining 80. The owner stated that he told Taylor that he could have all he obtained over 920 as his commission. This arrangement was made, according to the defendant, before he did any business for the Bakers, and was not specially with regard to them. The 10 was in respect of a mort- gage on the Paddington property, The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the 80 claimed. Bremnep v. Short. Lord Mayor's Court, 21 April, 1890. Before Mr. Aspland, Q.C., and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 353. Fresh transaction Commission not recoverable. This was an action brought by Mr. Albert Bremner, an officer of the Salvation Army, one of the managers of that body, against Mr. Short, the owner of certain property at Notting-hill, to recover 23, being 1 per cent, commission on a sum of 2,300, advanced by a building society on mortgage of the defendant's premises. The defendant, it appeared, wished to mortgage his property, and wrote to the plaintiff stating that if he could arrange for a loan of 2,750 at 4 per cent, he would pay him 1 per cent, on completion. Ultimately the plaintiff, with the assistance of a person named Fremlin, introduced a society, who advanced the plaintiff 2,300 on his pro- perty at 5 per cent. Afterwards Fremlin who did most of the work wrote to the defendant, stating his willing- ness to accept 2 2s., in satisfaction of his claim for the 192 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. services which he had rendered. This sum was paid, and the defence was that this closed the matter, inasmuch as the business was done with Fremlin alone, who had pro- cured the loan at 5 per cent., and the foriginal contract had never been carried out by the plaintiff. The plaintiff having given evidence the jury adopted the defendant's version of the transaction and found a verdict in his favour. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Batten ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Holloway. Esam v. Carter. Hastings County Court, 14 April, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 353. Introduction as tenant or as purcliascr ! This was a claim for 19 as commission for house letting, the plaintiff's case being that he first introduced the tenant to the house as a purchaser, but in order that she should be able to see whether the house was in good order she first rented it for one year. He had lost some papers of 1886, and amongst them a communication from Mi- Carter, saying that he was to sell the property at 800 or 850, or let it. He let it to a Mrs. Clift for a year with the option of purchase, and that lady subsequently negotiated through him for the jp_urchase_Qf the house and land at 850. The defendant said that Mr. Esam introduced Mrs. Clift as a tenant merely. He (defendant) had not endeavoured to sell before Mrs. Clift took the house as a tenant and he did not recollect having any conversation with Mr. Esam as to the sale of the house. His Honour eventually gave judgment for the defendant with costs. Mr. E. A. Knight appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. G. Langham for the defendant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 193 Herring v. Lane. Wandsworth County Court, 24 April, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Holroyd. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. .378. First introduction Commission payable to two firms. The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Herring, Son and Daw, Brixton-hill, S.W., and the defendant was a gen- tleman at one time residing at The Anchorage, Streatham. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendant's wife had called at the plaintiffs' Brixton place of business and given them instructions to find a tenant for her house in Kirkstall-road, Streatham. The plaintiffs took the usual measures for finding a tenant, and a Mrs. Mason called on them and asked for permission to go over the house. An order was accordingly given to her, but, having viewed the premises, Mrs. Mason, instead of going back to the plain- tiffs, went by mistake to another firm of house agents, and completed all arrangements with them for the letting of the house, and they had been paid the commission on the transaction. The plaintiffs' contention now was that they, having been the persons who first introduced Mrs. Mason, were distinctly entitled to their commission, in spite of the fact that the other agents had also been paid. Several witnesses were called for the defence, but his Hun jur, having heard the whole of the evidence, said he was clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sum they claimed, and he gave judgment accordingly, with costs. Mr. Guy Lushington was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Peach appeared for the defendants. Trollope and Sons v. Hamilton and others. Queen's Bench Division, 22 May, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Day and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 458. First introduction Commission pay able to two firms. The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. George Trollope and Sons, the well-known land and estate agents, and the 194 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. defendants were Mrs. Charlotte Maria Hamilton, Cadogan Square ; Mr. Alexander Charles Hamilton, 41, Lennox Gardens ; and Mr. Ralph Charlton Palmer, 9, Little Stanhope Street, Mayfair. The plaintiffs' claim was 807 10s., being commission on the sum of 17,000 at the following rate namely, 5 per cent, on the first 100, 2^ per cent, on 4,900, and 1| per cent, on 12,000, which rate of commission the defendants agreed in September, 1884, to pay to the plaintiffs on the purchase money of the defendants' house, No. 1, CadogHn Square, in the event of the plaintiffs finding for the defen- dants a purchaser. The commission became due in May, 1889, when the plaintiffs found a purchaser at the sum named. The defendants were sued as trustees under the will, dated the 18th February, 1885, of Robert William Hamilton, deceased. The defendants admitted their liability to pay commission ; but the question was as to whether they ought to pay it to the plaintiffs, or to Messrs. Godwin, Basley and Co., another firm of land and estate agents. Evidence was first given by a clerk in the employ of the plaintiffs, and engaged in the auction and estate agency department, who deposed that he first saw Mr. Kenyon Stow about March or April, 1837. He called then at the offices of the plaintiffs more particularly as to taking a fur- nished house for the season. In the course of interviews with Mrs. Kenyon Stow, mention was first made of No. 1, Cadogan Square. At another interview with Mr. Kenyon Stow, witness again mentioned the fact that the house in question was for sale or to be let. He stated that the price was 18,000, at 30 a year ground rent, or 15,000, at 155 a year ground rent. There were other interviews, and Mrs. Kenyon Stow had a card to view the house. In 1888 he saw Mrs. Hamilton at the house in question. She observed that she would want to take a similar house. The witness asked who was taking the house for the season, and was told that it was a Mr. Stow, whereupon the witness remarked that he had introduced the house to that gentleman with a view to a sale. He did not remember that Mrs. Hamilton made any reply to that. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 195 In cross-examination the witness stated that Mr. Stow, the purchaser, had not paid any commission. There was no arrangement that he was to pay so far as lie knew. The house was let to him in 1888 for the season. The letting did not take place through them. He understood the house was let through Messrs. Godwin, Basley and Co. The plaintiffs did not claim any commission for the letting. Witness had since learned that the house was let to Mr. Stow in 1888 with an option to purchase for 17,000. . Another witness in the employ of the plaintiffs srated that in 1889 Mr. McNeill, the agent acting for Mr. Stow, made an offer to him for the house which was refused. Ultimately, the offer was increased to 17,000 and accepted. He did not know that anyone else was acting as agent for the defendants. For the defence io was pointed out that Mrs. Hamilton had put the house into the hands of various agents, includ- ing Messrs. Trollope and Sons and Messrs. Godwin, Basley and Co. Mr. Frederick Haclley, one of the managers of the business carried on by Messrs. Godwin. Basley an 1 Co., said that he remembered No. 1, Cadogan Square, being put upon their books for purposes of sale or letting. They received renewed instructions on several dates. They gave many cards to view previous to 1888. In April, 1888, witness saw Mr. Stow. That gentleman went to the office in the afternoon, and asked for particulars of houses, and the witness gave i '.formation with respect to various properties, including the one in question. He took an order, and went and saw the house at once. On his return he stated that the house suited him exactly. The witness thereupon showed him the different prices in the book, the lowest of which was 17,000. according to the last instruc- tions. Mr. Stow then offered 14,000 guineas, and witness saw Mrs. Hamilton in the evening, and submitted the offer, which that lady refused to accept. Mr. Stow then inquired if he could take the house furnished. The witness accordingly saw Mrs. Hamilton again, and she, being of opinion that Mr. Stow was a likely purchaser, expressed her willingness to go out of her way. Mr. Stow then offered 600 guineas for the season, with the option of o2 196 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. purchase for 17,000, which was ultimately accepted by Mrs. Hamilton. Mr. Stow signed the agreement, and paid half of the 600 guineas. MX. Herbert Eldridge, a member of the firm of Messrs. Godwin, Basley and Co., deposed that the last witness conducted the preliminary negotiations, and that his firm received the commission lor the letting. He did not know anything of Messrs. Trollope and Sons being engaged in the matter till the 12tia April, 1889. Mr. Keuyon Stow stated that he believed he went to the office of Messrs. Godwin, Basley and Co. in April, 1888. He thought he had an order from them to view the house in question. He certainly viewed it, and probably returned to the office on the same day. He did not know whether he had previously seen the house. He had no definite recollection that he had seen it except on that occasion. He afterwards took the house and occupied it. The learned judge having summed up the evidence, a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed was returned. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Crump, Q.C., and Mr. Rani (instructed by Messrs. Trollope and Winckworth) ; counsel for the defendants: Mr. Gully, Q.C., and Mr. Walker (instructed by Messrs. Markby, Wilde and Johnson). Eiloart and Temple v. Kingston. Folkestone County Courtj 13 May, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Selfe. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 459. Denial of retainer. This was a claim for commission for letting apartments at 9, The Lees, Folkestone, and also for letting a furnished house at 64, Coolinge Road. Mr. Temple taid he was one of the plaintiffs. He re- membered the defendant calling at his office to let, furnished, 64, Coolinge Road. He made an entry of it in the call book on the 16th September, 1889. A few COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 197 days after that he had inquiries for furnished apart- ments by a Mr. Lawson. On the 3rd October he called at the defendant's house, at No. 9, The Lees, and on the same day he wrote to Mr. Lawson, enclosing particulars of some apartments. Mr. Lawson called on him and he took him to the defendant's house, and he took the apart- ments. Subsequently he called upon Mr. Kingston and asked for his commission. He (defendant) said they had shown Mr. Lawson other houses, and therefore could not claim commission. Mr. Bernard Eiloart, senior partner of the firm, said he wrote a letter to the defendant on the 10th October asking for payment of commission. In the following January he called upon Miss Bruce, who lived at 62, Coolinge Road, as she wanted a house between 80 and 100 guineas for the year and he advised her to move to No. 64. On the 12th February Miss Bruce called at his office and dictated an offer for the house. He wrote to defendant submitting the offer. It was the usual practice to charge 5 per cent, com- mission on the total of the rent. He had had considerable London experience in these matters. In London they charged 5 per cent, commission. Miss Bruce gave confirmatory evidence. She had told defendant that Mr. Eiloart had mentioned the house to her. She could not remember what he replied, but he did eay he generally did business with Mr. Sherwood. Had it not been for Mr. Eiloart she certainly should not have taken the house. Mr. Sherwood made the agreement and she signed it. Mr. Harry Howell Barton, an auctioneer and house agent, carrying on business in Folkestone, said the com- mission on letting houses was 5 per cent. The com- mission for letting apartments was the same. The defendant's case was a direct denial of that put for- ward by the plaintiffs. He alleged that the plaintiffs were strangers to him. He had never commissioned them to let either his house or apartments. His Honour, in summing up, said that the defendant's case was a very remarkable one. There could be no doubt that the apartments were let through Messrs. Eiloart and Temple, and also the house in Coolinge Road. It appeared 198 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. to him that the plaintiffs were instructed by the defendant, and he should give judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs. Mr. F. Hall appeared for the plaintiffs. Parr v. Headdey. Queen's Bench Division, 22 May, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Grantham and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 482. Disputed rate of Commission Scale of the London Institute of Estate and House Agents. The plaintiff in this action was a member of the firm of Messrs. Parr BrotLerp, carrying on business at Peter- borough as auctioneers and estate agents, and he sued the defendant for commission on the sale of 16 acres of building land in the neighbourhood. The defendant's solicitors requested the plaintiff to find a purchaser, and promised a very good commission in the event of a sale being effected. The plaintiff, in conse- quence, brought the matter to the notice of the Rock Building Society, who ultimately bought the land for 3,300, which was alleged to have been its outside value. On this sum the plaintiff accordingly charged a commission of 2^ per cent., but the defendant considered that 1 per cent, was the proper scale of remuneration, and paid 35 into court as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. Evidence was given that the scale of the London Institute of Estate and House Agents with respect to sales of freehold and copyhold estates and houses by private contract was 5 per cent, on the first 100, and after that 2 10s. per cent, up to 1,000. The learned judge having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the 24 per cent, commission, that is 47 10s. beyond the amount paid into court, and judgment was given accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Dickens, Q.C. ; counsel for the defendant: Mr. Crump, Q.C., and Mr. Graham. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 199 Hope v. Nelson. Wigton County Court, 21 May, 1890. Before Vincent Thompson, Esq., Deputy Judge. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 482. Conditions of sale Commission payable when Jiorse not sold. This claim was brought by an auctioneer in respect of commission on a horse which was entered for sale by the defendant at the plaintiff's mart, but not brought forward. The sale was held under special conditions; and one of than wad as follows : "Any horse or horses entered in the catalogue and sold privately, either at home or on the rosd to the mart, or not brought to the mart for sale, will be charged 5 per cent, commission on the reserve price or estimated value." The defendant did not bring his hcrse to the mart, and the plaintiff now claimed the co.nmission upon the reserve price to which he was en- tilled under the above rule, of which the object was to pre- vmt persons who entered horses for sale, and thus had ttem advertised, escaping from paying commission. The defendant now said that the horse had pulled a sloe off and became lame, and was not fit to be sent to the mart. For the plaintiff, however, it was stated that the oily explanation which the defendant had previously given was contained in a letter which he wrote, and in which he sated that on the morning of the sale he \vas ill. His Honour said that the defendant had yiven two afferent reasons for n t sending the horse to the mart, md with the rule staring him in the face, he was bound to give a V2i*dict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, vith costs. Mr. Rigg appeared for the plaintiff. 200 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Isaac v. Fraser. Queen's Bench Division, 5 June, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a Special Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 507. Denial of retainer or of promise to pay commission. This was an action to recover commission upon the sale of an estate, and the plaintiff's case was that he first net the defendant, General Fraser. at Christie's Rooms, and in the course of conversation alluded to the estate in quebtbn. At first he did not mention its name, but said, " If you do buy it, will you give me my commission for telling you about it ?" The defendant replied, "Certainly, certainly," and the plaintiff then told him that the estate was at West-end-lane, West Hampstead, and subsequertly obtained lor him further particulars. When the estate vas put up to auction by Messrs. Baker and Sons, of Quean Victoria Street, the General attended and purchased it ior J632,000. Subsequently the plaintiff asked for conimissbn upon the transaction, but was told that he was not entitfed to anything. The plaintiff now asked for 1 per cent, upm the purchase-money, or such other amount as the jury should think fair. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his case. Mr. Leopold Farmer, estate agent, deposed that on tie 18th Juue, 1889, with and at the request of Mr. Isaac, he called upon General Fraser at his residence in Sloare Street. Major Taylor was present at the interview. Tls- witness was introduced to the defendant by Mr. Isaac He (the witness) advised the defendant as to the value o r the property, and gave his opinion concerning the neighbourhood, and suggested that he should purchase the property for him. The defendant made an appointment to be at the witness's office on the 21st, which was the day of the sale. General Fraser and Major Taylor called upon him on the day named. During the interview, the Major said to the General, "Mr. Farmer intends to charge you 1 per cent, for purchasing," the reply being, " I am not going to pay any commission at all." After further con- versation, the defendant said to witness, " I am not going COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 201 to pay any two commissions. My solicitor tells me I must only pay you for the trouble you have had in coming clown to me." The General and Major then left. The defendant had not paid him anything. Mr. Henry Clement Wood, auctioneer, surveyor and estate agent, of Great James Street, Bedford Row, and surveyor for the parish of Tooting, stated that he had been in business for about twelve years. He had heard the evidence given in this case. The usual commission was 1 per cent. That was the scale laid down by the Surveyors' Institution. By his Lordship : If one private gentleman apprised another private gentleman of the fact that a certain estate was for sale, and the information given led the latter to purchase the property, he should think it an unreasonable thing if any commission were claimed. General Fraser stated that on the occasion of the meet- ing at Christie's Rooms not one word was said about commission, and he did not make any appointment to meet the plaintiff again. The first time he saw West End House he found the walls and trees in front of it were placarded. On that occasion he -saw the plaintiff. After preliminary conversation, the plaintiff said, " If you buy this place, I hope you will give me something." Witness laughed at the idea of buying the property, and said, "I* think I should do, something for you or give you something.' He never heard the word " commission " mentioned by the plaintiff till after the purchase was concluded. At the interview, the plaintiff further said, "If you do think of purchasing the place, I wish you would employ my brother- in-law, Mr. Farmer.' Wishing to do the plaintiff a good turn, witness replied, " I will see about that." The plaintiff inquired if he might bring him round to witness's house, and he replied in the affirmative. Plaintiff and Mr. Farmer called upon him in due course, and wishisg to do the plaintiff a good turn, he promised to employ Mr. Farmer if he thought of purchasing. The witness called upon Mr. Farmer on the day of the sale, and the first thing that gentleman said was, "What commission are you going to give me ? " In answer, the General said, " What- ever my solicitor says is handsome no more and no less." 202 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Mr. Farmer intimated that bis charge would be 1 percent., and the witness declined to engage him on those conditions. The witness attended the sale, bid himself for the property, and bought it. It was distinctly untrue that he said he would not pay " two commissions." Major Taylor gave corroborative evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Fillan ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., Mr. Montague Lush and Mr. M'Neil. Brodie, Timbs and Baker v. Beach. City of London Court, 3 Juno, 1890. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 507. Denial of retainer No contract express or implied. The plaintiffs were suing for commission on the sale of the house 103, West End Lane, Hampstead, for 800. The defendant pleaded that he never treated with the plaintiffs at all, that they did not sell the house for him, and that he gave them no instructions. The plaintiffs' managing clerk said that he called at the house and saw the defendant's foreman, who gave him the usual details. He asked him whether the defendant would pay a commission if they let the house, and he replied, "Certainly." A board was put up and it remained in front of the house for twelve months. A Mr. Windust called on them and in consequence of their introduction purchased the house. The defendant never instructed them to remove the board, though he now stated that he gave his foreman instructions not to allow a board to be put up. Mr. Windust was called to say he bought the house of the defendant through the intervention of the plaintiffs. Mr. Commissioner Kerr pointed out there was nothing to bind the defendant to pay any commission, but it was urged that the defendant being fully aware of the custom COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 208 of estate agents had allowed the plaintiffs to invite persons to purchase ihe house. Mr. Commissioner Kerr said the plaintiffs must show a contract either expressed or implied to pay their commission, and that they did not do. He must find for the defendant with costs, as the plaintiffs had not obtained the defendant's sanction for what they had done. Mr. W. R. Kinipple appeared for the plaintiffs. Kay v. Allen and Manooch. Westminster County Court, 25 June, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxv., p. 600. Agreed commission Payment of lum}) sum. This action was brought against Messrs. Allen and Manooch, house and estate agents, to recover 27 15s. , alleged to have been improperly deducted in connection with the sale of a house in Grosvenor Street. The dispute arose in the following manner : Mr. Lister Kay was the owner of the house, and being desirous of finding a pur- chaser, he communicated with Messrs. Allen and Manocch, and instructed them to do their best to find a purchaser. Negotiations were at once set on foot, and shortly after- wards a Mr. Johnson, who was also a house agent, called on them, and expressed a desire to purchase the premises on behalf of a Mrs. Forrester. He was given an order to view and did so, in company with Mr. Cobb, Messrs. Allen and Co.'s manager. The following day Mr. Johnson called again and presented a written offer to purchase for 8,150. Mr. Kay was present, and agreed to accept thtt sum, at the same time mentioning the fact that he had agreed to pay the agents the sum of 200. When the matter was fully completed, Messrs. Allen and Co. applied for their agreed commission of 200. In reply to their application a sum of 172 5s. was forwarded to them by the trustees, together with an intimation that they were only instructed to pay the ordinary sum due as commission. The agents had then in hand a sum of 80 which had been handed to 204 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. them in payment of some fixtures, and, feeling that they were entitled to the balance of the 200, they deducted the amount due to them from the 80, and the balance of 27 15s. was the subject of the present action. Mr. Cobb gave evidence, and Mr. H. W. Johnson was also called. He said it was he who introduced Mrs. Forrester to the premises. His firm would he entitled to a third of the commission. He heard Mr. Kay on several occasions say that lie WHS going to pay the agents 200. Mr. Drummond Lister Kay was called on the other side and totally denied that he ever promised to pay the de- fendant 200. They asked him if he would, but he distinctly refused t do so. When he on a former occasion put the matter in the hands of Mr. Copping he did undertake to pay him 200. but he never extended that offer to Messrs. Allen and Manooch. He told Cobb that he should not pay 200, but that when the matter was concluded he would pay the usual commission. The jury having come to the conclusion that the defen- dants were promised 200, and were justified in deducting the 27 15s., judgment was entered in their favour, with costs. Mr. T. Forbes appeared tor the plaintiff, and Mr. Lynden Bell was counsel for the defendants. Evens v. Clarke. Queen's Bench Division, 1 July, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Charles. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE.VO!. xxxv., p. 340, and Vol. xxxvi., p. 19. Amount of commission disputed Heavy claim. This was a motion for a new trial on behalf of the defendant, the jury having given a verdict for the plaintiff for 10,000. The claim was based on an agreement by the defendant to pay commission to the plaintiff upon his effecting a sale of the Chancey-lane Safe Deposit and the premises connected with that establishment, the property of the defendant. The sale never was effected, but the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 205 plaintiff contended that lie had introduced a purchaser, and that therefore he was entitled to recover. The principal point of interest was the heavy amount of the commission claimed, but in the Divisional Court the matter was at the suggestion of their lordships settled, the award being reduced to 2,500. Counsel for the plaintiff: the Solicitor-General, Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Boyle ; for the defendant : Mr. Finlay, Q.C., Mr. Winch, QX)., and Mr. Kisch. Grogan and Co. v. Smith. Queen's Bench Division, 9 July, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Grantham. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., pp. 34 and 573. Commission as a rule recoverable where agent has found party ready and willing to purchase, but regard must be had to the facts. This was an action brought to recover commission earned by the plaintiff as house agent in reference to the sale of a house in Park Street. The plaintiff, whose business was carried on under the style of Henry Grogan and Co., was introduced to the defendant, who was then building certain houses in Park Street, and the defendant authorised him to find purchasers for the leases, the terms of commission being 5 per cent. on the first 100, and 2 per cent, after that up to 5,000. The plaintiff gave an order to view No. 106 to a Mr. Watson, and received a letter from the architect and surveyor, instructed by Mr. Watson, offering to give the sum of 5,000 for a 90 years' lease of No. 106. On that considerable correspondence passed, and ultimately the plaintiff wrote to the intended purchaser that Mr. Smith agreed to the terms. But the defendant afterwards wrote to the plaintiff that he would not agree, and that the matter must fall through. The defendant now refused to pay commission, and the plaintiff brought this action to recover 128 on the ground that he had done all he was called upon to do, as he had found someone ready, willing, and able to purchase the lease, and this had been agreed to by 206 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the defendant. The defence was that the defendant was not liable to pay the commission, as n* complete contract was ever made with Mr. Watson, and that it was a mere negotiation, which went off as Mr. Watson's requirements were too numerous. His Lordship, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment, saying he had no doubt that his judgment must be for the plaintiff. On the correspondence it was almost conclusive that the contract was completed, but the evidence of Mr. Watson's agent placed the matter beyond all doubt. They had agreed on the terms, though no doubt there was a discussion about certain things, but those were outside the agreement, and he was obliged to say that he thought he was justified in doubting the contention which the defen- dant now set up. In his opinion, as far as the defendant and Watson were concerned, there was a contract, and the plaintiff did all he ought to have done to earn his com- mission. He therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amovnt claimed, with costs. The defendant appealed against this decision, and after the case had been argued at great length in the Court of Appeal (6th December, 1890) the Master of the Eolls and Lords Justices Kay and Lopes reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Grantham, and gave judgment for the de- fendant. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. C. G. Ellis ; counsel for the defendant : Mr Winch, Q.C., Mr. J. L. Walton, Q.C., and Mr. A. Powell. Gray and another v. Hayward Birmingham County Court, 9 July, 1890. Before his Hoiiour Judge Chalmers and a Jury. Beported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 35. First introducer entitled to commission Scrcral agents employed. In this action Messrs. Gray and Walker, auctioneers, of Birmingham, were suing to recover 60 for commission. It appeared that Mr. Hayward was the mortgagee of the Royal Hotel, Button Coldtield, and wished to dispose of his COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 207 interest. Messrs. Gray and Walker introduced a client of theirs, Mr. William Horton, to Mr. Hayward with a view to purchase, and a conversation took place, in the course of which it was agreed that if Anything came of the nego- tiation Messrs. Gray and Walker's commission should be paid by defendant. The negotiation with Mr. Horton fell through, but Mr. Hayward supplied the plaintiffs with par- ticulars of the property. Subsequently Mr. C. Showell, of the firm of Showell and Sons, saw Mr. Gray, and a con- versation took place with respect to the Royal Hotel. As the result of this, the hotel was purchased by Mr. Showell and a Mr. Wilkinson. The negotiations were concluded by Messrs. Thomas and Bettridge, auctioneers, of Birming- ham, who made the valuation of the contents of the hotel, but plaintiff claimed the commission as having introduced the purchaser. When Mr. Hayward was asked by Mr. Gray to pay the commission, he replied, " You were not in it. It is true you introduced the matter, but Mr. Thomas finished it," and added that he did not want to pay two commissions, having paid Messrs. Thomas and Bettridge already. Mr. Joseph Gray gave evidence of the interviews he had with the defendant, and, in cross-examination, denied having spoken excitedly about the matter with the result that defendant withdrew the business from him. He stated that Mr. Hayward had never at any time given him to understand that his authority to sell the property was revoked. Mr. Charles Showell also gave evidence. The defence set up was that, though Mr. Gray might have mentioned the matter to Mr. Showell, that was not an effective introduction which led to the sale of the hotel. The sale of the business was in the hands of a large number of agents, and the effective introduction was made by Messrs. Thomas and Bettridge. If the defendant was to pay commission to all of the agents, he would not have much of the purchase money left. In the result the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. Mr. Stubbins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Vachell for the defendant. 208 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Horncastle and another v. Pigot. Queen's Bench Division, 12 July, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Day. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 59. WitJidrawalfee Alleged unreasonable delay in finding purcliaser. This was an action to recover 210, the amount of with- drawal fee payable by the defendant, pursuant to the follow- ing agreement : " To Messrs. Horncastle and Pember, auc- tioneers and surveyors. Re West Hall Estate. I hereby authorise and instruct you, as my agents, to dispose of the above estate for me, as per particulars furnished by Lady Pigot, at a price to be agreed upon, say 34,000. I agree to pay you a commission of 800 for effecting the sale, which I authorise and request the purchaser to pay to you at the time of executing the deeds. If the proposed mort- gage and insurance are decided upon, then I agree to pay a procuration fee of 2 percent, on the sum advanced. The business is placed solely in your hands, and all parties are to be referred to you to negotiate with." The above was signed by the defendant, Sir Robert Pigot, and witnessed by Elizabeth Campbell. After the signature there was the following postscript: "If the property is witbdrawn, I will pay you a withdrawal fee of 200 guineas." The plain- tiffs' case was that the above agreement had been entered into because the estate had been put into the hands of other agents ; that the agreement with the po&tcript was taken away by Lady Pigot to be signed by the defendant, who was an old gentleman about 88 years old ; and that after the plaintiffs had devoted time and labour to find a purchaser for the estate, the defendant sold part of the estate, and thereby took the sale of the estate out of their hands. The defence was that the postscript had been added after the signature, and that even if it was there, there was an implied condition that the plaintiffs should procure a purchaser within a reasonable time, and not having done so, the defendant was justified in withdrawing the sale of the estate from them. The evidence for the plaintiffs showed that they had used endeavours to find a purchaser for the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 209 estate, and bad written a number of letters and bad a num- ber of interviews, and that tbe postscript was attached to the agreement before it was signed. For tbe defence Lady Pigot was called, and said sbe did not see tbe postscript to tbe agreement when her husband signed it. Mr. Justice Day, in giving judgment, said be bad to con- strue tbe agreement, not to make it. He thought it such as no commonly prudent person ought to have signed, and such as ought not to have been presented for signature. His duty was to ascertain whether it was made. There was no evidence that the postscript was not there when signed. It had been sworn to by two witnesses, one who wrote it, and another who said it was there when he received it back from the defendant. He saw nothing on the face of tbe document itself to corroborate the sugges- tion of the defendant. He came to the conclusion that it was not shown that the postscript was not there when the agreement was signed. He could find no evidence that an unreasonable time had elapsed between the signing of the agreement and the sale of tbe estate. It was clear that tbe agreement was withdrawn by a sale of a part of the estate. He felt he must find for tbe plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. C. C. M. Plumptre and Mr. Lacey Smith ; counsel for tbe defendant : Mr. Colam. Green and Son v. Stiles. Brompton County Court, 8 July, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 59. Ultimate purchaser receiving particulars of auction First introduction. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Green and Son, auctioneers, of High Street, Hammersmith, sought to recover commission and costs out of pocket incurred on the sale of two houses in Wingale Road, Hammersmith. The property in question was submitted to public auction on the 25th February, 1890, and the reserve was fixed at 565. At tbe sale tbe highest bid was 550 ; therefore the property was bought in. 210 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. The defendant was on the 9th March interviewed by a Mr. Pedler, who had bid 550 at the auction, and who knew the defendant was owner, and he offered to buy at 584. The defendant did not then sell, but on the 10th March he wrote to plaintiffs that unless they sold the property by the 13th March it would be taken out of their hands, and on the 14th March, one day later, he sold to Mr. Pedler at 584, and thereupon the plaintiffs claimed commission. Mr. Pedler gave evidence, and stated in cross-examina- tion that his attention to the property was called l>y re- ceiving printed particulars and conditions of sale announcing the auction. On behalf of the defendant it was urged that plaintiff's had no claim, as defendant really sold the property per- sonally, but his Honour, in giving judgment, said that it was clearly proved that the plaintiffs were instrumental in selling the property, and he therefore found for them for the full amount claimed. Perrott v. Reynolds. Westminster County Court, 14 July, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 82. Disputed introduction of pur chaser. In this case Mr. James Perrott. sued Mr. John Pteynolds, of Surbiton, for 60, as commission in respect of the sale of some house proper f ,y at FHrnham Royal. The plaintiff, it appeared, was a builder, and had built the property in respect of which the present proceedings were taken. He was the person who introduced to the defendant a customer for the property, and, as it was arranged previously that he should receive commission at the rate of 5 per cent, for the introduction, he now made his claim against the defendant, who denied his liability. A letter written by defendant to plaintiff was to the effect that the former enclosed particulars of the amounts he was prepared to receive for the property, Hdding that if he could find a purchaser for any of the three lots he would allow 5 per cent, on the purchase money. The property COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 211 in question was twice put up for auction, but on neither occasion was it sold. A gentleman named Bunce was then introduced t'> the defendant by the plaintiff. They had some five or six interviews, and, ultimately, the defendant agreed t-> sell the property to Mr. Bunce, coining down from 1,975, the price he originally asked, to 1,200. After that the plaintiff sent in his claim for commission, and the matter remained in abeyance for some time, but, subsequently, the defendant wrote to say that he could not pay the plaintiff his claim, as he had not introduced the purchaser of the property, but that that had been done by Mr. Mason, auctioneer and surveyor, of Windsor, who had been paid his commission. The plaintiff said that he brought the defendant and Mr. Bunce together. The defendant told him on a sub- sequent occasion that he could not get Mr. Bunce tn give any more than 1,200 for the property, and he then said to the defendant, "I suppose you will stanil good to your word about commission ? " to which the defendant re- plied, " Yes." Mr. Bunce having finally bought the property, he wrote to the defendant, asking for his com- mission. The answer he received from the defendant was to the effect that he would reply more fully in the course of a few days. He afterwards wrote to the de- fendant's solicitors, and they refused payment. Mr. Dauiel .Bunce stated that be purchased the pro- perty in question in February, 1889. He had known the plaintiff about four or five years, and he it was who first introduced the property to his notice, that being some four or five months before he purchased it. He admitted in cross-examination that, while out hunting, he saw a board that the property was for sale, and that he afterwards wrote t > Mr. Mason for particulars, and got a reply. After that however, he went to see Mr. Perrott, to get particulars in reference to the drains, and it was some months after that that the actual purchase took place. For the defence it was contended that the real point at issue was who was actually the person who introduced the purchaser for the property. Mr. \V. B. Mason, auctioneer and estate agent, of Windsor, was called, and stated that he was instructed by Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, to sell 212 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the property, and, as a matter of fact, he put it up for sale on two occasions. He sold a portion of it by that means, and the other portion was subsequently purchased by Mr. Bunce. In respect to this particular property, he received a letter from Mr.. Bunce asking him to name the lowest price for it, and he did so. ^JDUJ* ^^ , Other witnesses were called, and his Honour briefly gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. C. E. Jones ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Edmondson. Barnett v. Brown and Co. Queen's Bench Division, 4 August, 1890. Before Lord Justice Lopes. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 131. Two claimants to commission Effective introduction. This was an interpleader issue directed to be tried to determine the right to a sum of 106 10s., which had been paid into court by Mr. Cuthbert Quilter, the defendant in an action brought against him by the present plaintiff, Mr. Barnett, to recover the above sum by way of commis- sion alleged to be due to the plaintiff in respect of the sale of a lease of a house belonging to Mr. Quilter. The case raised an interesting point as to the claim of house agents to commission on the sale or letting of houses. The plaintiff, Mr. Barnett, and the defendants, F. E. Brown and Co., both carried on business as house agents in the neighbourhood of Mayfair. Mr. Qnilter, in the early part of 1889, was desirous of selling the lease of a house in Norfolk Street, Park Lane, and both the plain- tiff and defendants were in communication with him on the matter. Before April, 1889, the plaintiff Barnett had been in correspondence with a Mrs. Thomas as to letting or selling her house in the neighbourhood, and on the 25th April, 1889, the plaintiff gave Mrs. Thomas an order to view the house in Norfolk Street, and Mrs. Thomas went over the house after receiving the order. On the 26th April Mrs. Thomas applied to the defendants, Brown and Co., for orders to view houses, and received from them an order to COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 213 view the house in question, and she appeared again to have gone over the house upon receiving the order. Evi- dence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that he had made and fulfilled several appointments with Mrs. Thomas to view the house, and had been in correspondence with Mr. Quilter as to the terms of the sale. Nothing, however, resulted from what was then done, and Mrs. Thomas took another house in Hill Street ihrough the plaintiff. As to this house some difficulty arose, and after taking posses- sion Mrs. Thomas had at once to leave it again, and appeared again to have been looking for a house, negotiat- ing with that object with the defendants, Brown and Co., and terms respecting the house in question in Norfolk Street were again the subject of discussion between Mrs. Thomas, Messrs. Hampton and Sons, of Pall Mall (who were acting on her behalf), and the defendants. Communications also took place between Mrs. Thomas and the plaintiff, which, however, ceased at the end of July, Mrs. Thomas not answering the last few letters written by the plaintiff on the question, and she did not after July carry on any further negotiations with him. She and Messrs. Hampton continued the discussion of terms with the defendants, which finally resulted in terms being arranged between Messrs. Hampton on her behalf, and the defendants, Brown and Co., on Mr. Quilter's behalf, and the purchase by Mrs. Thomas was carried through on those terms. The defendants then claimed the commission represented by the above-mentioned sum from Mr. Quilter. The plaintiff hearing that the sale had been carried out, also put for- ward a claim for the commission upon the ground that his firm had been the first to introduce Mrs. Thomas to Mr. Quilter and " having introduced a purchaser" was entitled to the commission. The defendants contended that they alone had been instrumental in definitely arranging the terms and carrying out the sale, and that even assuming that the plaintiff had been the first to introduce Mrs. Thomas, such introduction had not resulted in the carrying out of the sale. On behalf of the plaintiff it was contended there could be only one " introduction " in a case of this kind, and that it was a contradiction in terms to say there had been 214 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. two. The plaintiff bad brought the fact that the house was to be disposed of to the knowledge of Mrs. Thomas, and there was no evidence that she was ever in the house except on that introduction. The learned judge, however, remarked that be thought the defendants introduced her also, and that thf-re " might be fifty introductions." Proceeding to give judgment he observed that the question to be decided was whose intro- duction had brought about the purchase. He thought it was brought about by the introduction of the defendants. The tirjt introduction (that of the plaintiff) resulted in nothing ; the second (that of the defendants) resulted in a sale and entitled the defendants to the commission, and he gave judgment for them with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Clavell Salter ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Percy Gye. Lofts and Warner v. Pease. Queen's Bench Division, 6 August, 1890. Before Lord Justice Lopes. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 131. An introduction must lead to business, or no claim can be maintained in respect of it. The plaintiffs in this case were the well-known Mount Street estate agents, and the defendant was Sir Joseph Pease, M.P. The action was to recover commission upon the sale of the lease of the house 24, Kensington Palace Gardens. It appeared that in 1886 Sir Joseph Pease was desirous to sell his house in Kensington Palace Gaidens, and he placed the matter in the hands of several agents, and among them were the plaintiffs. They had prolonged negotiations with Sir Edward Harland as to his purchasing the lease, but the matter went off. In August, 1888, Sir Joseph Pease directed the plaintiffs to take down their board, asked for their account, and paid it. In the January following he placed the matter in the hands of Messrs. Hamnett, of Pall Mall, to whom Sir Edward Har- land wrote referring to his previous negotiations with the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 215 plaintiffs, and 'in the end they made a contract with Sir Edward to purchase the lease for 18,000. Sir Joseph paid them their commission, but the plaintiffs now sued to recover commission, contending that it was they who had introduced Sir Edward Harland, and that therefore they were entitled to be paid. Lord Justice Lopes, without calling upon the defendant's counsel, said that a house agent was not entitled to recover commission unless he showed that his introduction led to business. Here the plaintiffs' introduction resulted in nothing, and the sale beyond all question was effected by Messrs. Hamnett. In his opinion Sir Joseph Pease had very properly paid Messrs. Hamnett, and he could not be madTe liable to pay the plaintiffs. Judgment for the defendant, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Greene, Q.C., and Mr. Sim.; counsel for the defendant: Mr. Lane, Q.C., and Mr. Dankwerts. Clank and another v. Deuchar. Newcastle-on-Tyne Assizes, 6 August, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Charles. Reporced ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 131. ntroduction not effective Claim for commission not maintainable. In this action Messrs. Clark andBobson, solicitors, New- castle, claimed from Mr. Farquhar Deuchar, hotel pro- prietor, Newcastle, commission on the purchase price of a public-house, which the plaintiffs said they had intro- duced to the defendant. According to the plaintiffs' case, it appeared that Mr. Deuchar asked Mr. Clark if he could introduce any public-house property to him, and Mr. Clark asked what his firm would get out of it if he did. Mr. Deuchar promised them the conveyancing work, and Mr. Clark introduced two public-houses one the Dodd's Arms, at Elswick, and the other the Stack Hotel at Walker. It was the latter house which waj now in question. Mr. Clark having learnt that the Stack Hotel had been sold, and that the conveyancing had been given to somebody else, reminded Mr. Deuchar of their conversation. Mr 216 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Deuchar said be had forgotten his promise, and offered Messrs. Clark and Robson a present of 25. Mr. Clark said : " We do not want any present ; we are either en- titled to it or we are not." The house was sold for 8,000. The commission on that, at 1 per cent., would have been 30, and if the plaintiffs had had the conveyancing, they would have had 115 additional. Mr. Edward Clark having given evidence at great length in support of the claim, was cross-examined. The following questions were put to him among others : Did you regard this as a business transaction ? Entirely. Do you consider the transaction of commission business as part of your professional employment ? Certainly ; it is provided for in the Act itself. Do you devote Sunday nights to the commission part ? Any time I can make money. I am perfectly willing. I suppose it is part of a solicitor's duty to keep a diary recording his business trans- actions ? It is, if business is going to ensue. Did you make any note of this arrangement ? I did not, because Mr. Deuchar told me he would not buy, owing to the lease. Mr. Charles H. M. Eobson also gave evidence with regard to conversations in plaintiffs' office. For the defence Mr. Deuchar, Mr. Tweddell. and Mr. Dickinson, of the firm of Messrs. Mather. Cockcroft and Co., were called, and after hearing their evidence, Mr. Justice Charles, in giving judgment, said the whole question whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover or not depended, first, on the terms of the promise which was made to him by the defendant ; and, secondly, upon whether there had been any performance by the plaintiff' of his par! of the contract which was then alleged to have been entered into between the two. He had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to nothing. The contract had been proved substantially, but the difficulty was this, that Mr. Deuchar did not buy the hotel through the plaintiffs. Mr. Deuchar did not tell Mr. Clark that he knew of the hotel being for sale, and the reason he gave for his silence was not very satisfactory. But there could be no manner of doubt that, in point of fact, Mr. Deuchar did know of the hotel, and had been negotiating with Mr. Tweddell for the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 217 purchase of the hotel. His lordship gave judgment for the defendant, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. John Strachan ; counsel for the defendant: Mr. J. L. Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Lloyd. Dawe v. Bennett. 'City of London Court, 22 August, 1890. Before Mr. 0. B. C. Harrison- Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 202. A partnership question. The plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Dawe, auctioneer and business transfer agent, sued the defendant, Mr. J. R. Bennett, for .11 5s., commission on the sale of a business, situated at Luton Road, Chatham. It appeared that the plaintiff was formerly in partnership with Mr. Izard and his son, and they traded together as Izard, Dawe and Izard. The plaintiff retired from the partnership, and decided to carry on business by himself, the other partners then determining to do the same. All the busi- nesses on the books of the firm were transferred to the separate books of each member of it after the dissoluti6n, and it was the intention of each of them to try and sell those businesses, thus earning the commission. Amongst the businesses on the register was the defendant's at Luton Road, Chatham, and it was placed on Mr. Dawe's books, as well as on those of his partners. Mr. Dawe gave an order to view to Mr. "W. Whittell, who afterwards became the purchaser for 150, and took stock over also to that amount. The plaintiff, hearing from the purchaser of the sale, sent in his account to the defendant for the services he had rendered in bringing about the sale, claiming the usual commission payable under the circumstances. The plaintiff, Mr. Dawe, bore out these facts, and said he had received a letter from the defendant, offering to pay 5, which he refused. The learned judge, however, remarked that though he ihought the plaintiff was morally entitled to recover, he 218 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. knew of 110 legal decision to warrant the course of business which had been adopted. The defendant seemed to have instructed the plaintiff's firm before dissolution to try and sell his business, but he did not think that gave the plain- tiff the right to assume that he and his other partners were entitled to infer personal and individual instruction. Sup- posing both partners alter the dissolution claimed the com- mission, would they both be entitled to recover ? It might of course be said that the partner who was first in the field and who personally brought about the purchase would be entitled to the commission, but he was doubtful whether that was so in law. where personal instructions had never been given. Houses, for example, were often let by people who were never instructed, but that did not entitle them to commission. The defendant deposed that he never authorised the plaintiff or anyone to try and sell his business for him, but that he had sold it himself. After a lengthy hearing, the learned judge said that he should find for the defendant, and refused leave to appeal. Mr. G. M. Cohen was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. J*. M'Lellan for the defendant. Cane and Co. v. Moon and Gilkes and Massey and Co. Lambeth County Court, 25 September, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Powell. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 299. Finn introducing business entitled to commission, though another firm also employed. This was an action brought by Messrs. Cane and Co.' house agents and auctioneers, of Peckham, to recover commission alleged to be due to them for services rendered to the defendants in procuring a tenant for premises situate in Peckham. They had been instructed by the owners of the property (Messrs. Moon and Gilkes) to find a tenant for the house in question, and ultimately they found a person who was desirous of taking the house, but COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 219 owing to some delay on the part of the defendants the matter fell through. In May, 1890, a Mrs. Thompson sent to their office asking for an order to view, which was granted. About this time the plaintiffs received a letter from Messrs. Moon and Gilkes, stating that Messrs. Massey had opened an estate office almost opposite the premises in question, and as it would be more convenient for intending tenants to get the key from them, requested them (the plaintiffs) to hand the key over to them. The letter went on to say that there was no revocation of Messrs. Cane's authority to do their part in effecting a tenancy, and whichever .party was first successful would, of course, be paid the commission. It was ultimately dis- covered that Mrs. Thompson and her husband had become the tenants, and that Messrs. Massey had received the commission on the transaction. The plaintiffs now con- tended that as they were the persons who first introduced Mrs. Thompson, they were entitled to the commission in spite of the fact that the transaction was completed with Messrs. Massey. Mrs. Thompson was called and admitted that she went first to the plaintiffs and procured from them an order to view, but she put it in her pocket an.d thought no more of the matter. A week later she went with her husband to the premises, when she saw Messrs. Massey's board and accordingly they went to his office and obtained the key. Mr. Massey was also called, and said he claimed 10 be entitled to commission on the ground that Mrs. Thompson came to him and got an order to view, and he took her over the house. He was not aware that she had previously been to Messrs. Cane. His Honour, in giving judgment, said it was perfectly clear that the agent who first introduced a tenant was the one to whom commission was due. It was admitted by Mrs. Thompson that she first went to Messrs. Cane, so therefore he was of opinion that they were entitled to the commission. Judgment would be for the plaintiffs, with costs, but he thought it would be only fair if the par- ties divided tbe amount equally, and in the event of their agreeing to do so, he would give judgment without costs on either side. The plaintiffs, however, having suggested 220 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. the adoption of that course before the action was brought, now declined to entertain it. Judgment for the plaintiff's accordingly. Mr. Charles appeared for the plaintiffs. Richards and Co. v. Hudson. Westminster County Court, 22 October, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 394. Clerk to house agents claiming commission. This was an action brought by Messrs. Richards and Co., house agents and auctioneers, to recover commission alleged to be due on the sale of a house at 39, Lower Belgrave Street. The plaintiffs had been instructed to find a purchaser for the defendant's house, 39, Lower Belgrave Street. The matter went on for six or eight months, during which time plaintiffs sent a number of persons to view. It came to their knowledge that the house had been sold to a Mr. Mills and from inquiries they had reason to believe that the purchaser was introduced by their instrumentality. A communication was then sent to the defendant Hudson asking for particulars, and the reply was to the effect that the purchaser was introduced by a Mr. Wyatt. Wyatt was a clerk in the employ of the plaintiffs, and was actually in the plaintiffs' employ when the transaction took place, although about to leave. Mr. Barron, of the firm of Richards and Co., said that his firm was instructed by the defendant to procure a purchaser. A large number of applicants were sent to view the premises, and ultimately they were sold to Mr. Mills. Wyatt, who now claimed the commission, was at that time in the firm's employ as clerk, and he had not the slightest title whatever to his claim, having made improper use of the books in the office. Mr. Hudson, the defendant, was called, and denied that he ever had any dealings with the plaintiffs. The only person he saw in the matter was Wyait, arid he naturally COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 221 assumed that the commission was payable to him. He had always been ready and willing to pay, but he feared that if he paid one party the other one would sue him also. Mr. Alfred J. Wyatt said that Mills, who purchased the premises, was a private friend of his and that the trans- action was absolutely separate from the office altogether. His Honour in the result said that he was satisfied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the money, and judgment would be given accordingly. Bland v. Lansdown. Lord Mayor's Court, 22 October, 1890. Before [the Assistant Judge and a Jury. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 420. Plaintiffs not really introducers. This was an action to recover 28 commission on the introduction of a tenant for the shop and basement of 165, Fenchurch Street, formerly occupied by the defendant. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Bland and Campion, were auc- tioneers and estate agents. In June, 1890, the defendant was desirous of disposing of his business, and placed the matter in the hands of Messrs. Richard Ellis and Son, auctioneers. Subsequently, on the 7th June, Mr. Bland, a member of the plaintiff firm, called upon him, and the point at issue turned upon what took place between Mr. Bland and the defendant at this interview. According to Mr. Eland's statement the defendant said it did not matter to him who introduced a tenant. In either case he should pay Messrs. Ellis in whose hands he had pre- viously put the matter their commission, but if the plaintiffs introduced a tenant he would pay them. the same commission viz., 5 per cent, on the first year's rent and 5 percent, on the premium. He (Mr. Bland) mentioned the name of a Mr. Randall, among others, as a likely person to take the premises, and the defendant told him that that name had not been mentioned to him by Messrs. Ellis. Communications then passed between the plaintiff and Mr. Randall, and ultimately the premises were 222 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. taksn by Mr. Randall, at a rental of 210 per year and a premium of 225, on which the plaintiffs claimed com- mission. The defendant's version of the interview was that Mr. Bland never disclosed the fact that he was an agent, and thinking he was a purchaser, he (defendant) showed him over the premises and gave hi;n particulars. Subsequently, when he discovered that Mr. Bland was an agent, he de- clined to allow the business to be placed on his books, having placed the matter in Messrs. Ellis's hands. The purchaser, Mr. R. Randall, was called, and said that before receiving any communication whatever from the plaintiffs, he had inspected the premises, and that he was subsequently introduced to Messrs. Ellis, through whom he completed the purchase. The jury found for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. H. F. Dickens (instructed by Mr. Campion) ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. L. Glyn (instructed by Mr. Harper). Tower v. Burton. Westminster County Court, 30 October, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 420. First introducer entitled to commission. This was an action by an estate agent and auctioneer, trading as Latimer and Co., to recover 6 16s. 6d., being commission on the letting of a furnished flat at bhzabetu Mansions, Victoria Street, S.W. The plaintiff's case was that it came to his knowledge that the defendant, Major Burton, was desirous of letting his furnished flat at the above address, and thinking he knew of a likely person he sent his clerk to see the defendant about it. After some conversation the defendant instructed him to find a tenant as soon as he could, as he (defendant) was about to leave for India. Several persons were sent to view, and ulti- mately the place was let to a Mr. Kennedy. After the matter was settled, the defendant called at the plaintiff's COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 223 office and asked what commission he had to pay, but the plaintiff being out, the clerk said the account would be sent on. A few days afterwards the account was sent, and then for the first time the defendant replied repudiating the matter, alleging that Messrs. Marler and Bennett were his agents, and that they had been paid the commission. Mr. Kennedy was called, and said that he certainly heard of the premises first through the plaintiff, but the matter was ultimately completed by Messrs. Marler and Bennett, who prepared the agreement. The defendant could not be called, as he was absent in India, and his Honour said that if the plain tiff objected to an affidavit he had made, it could not be put in. He (the judge) was of opinion that the letting was brought about by the plaintiff's intervention in the first place, and there- fore judgment must be for him for the amount claimed. Chesterton and Sons v. Ackers. Queen's Bench Division, 3 November, 1890. Before Mr. Justice Grantham. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 442. First introducer entitled to commission Alleged breaking off of negotiations set up. This claim for commission was made by Messrs. Chesterton and Sons, the estate agents of 22, Lower Phillimore Place, Kensington, on the sale of the house No. 5, Prince of Wales Terrace, Kensington, and the furniture contained therein. The defendant had purchased the house through the plaintiffs' agency, and towards the end of 1888, being desirous to re-sell, he instructed the plaintiffs to find a purchaser. Terms were arranged, but, no private trnar.y sale being effected, the property was offered to public auction. About four days before the proposed sale the plaintiffs received a call from a Dr. Warner, who intimated that he was desirous of purchasing, and asked for particulars. No sale being effected at the auction, the defendant in May, 1889, wrote to the plaintiffs saying that after a fortnight from the date of trhe letter they would 224 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. cease to be his sole agents. At the end of that period the defendant instructed Messrs. Howell, Son and Bonnin, of 116, Cromwell Eoad, to fiuda purchaser. Negotiations were continued between Messrs. Chesterton and Dr. Warner until about the middle of September. Nothing came of the matter until the early part of November, when Dr. Warner became the purchaser ; but the pur- chase was actually completed by Messrs. Howell, Son and Bonnin. This coming to the knowledge of Messrs. Chesterton, a claim for commission on the sale was sent to the defendant by them. He, however, sent a cheque for 23 os. 8d. for auction and out of pocket expenses. The action was now brought to recover the actual com- mission on the sale (which was 3,600 for the house and 300 for furniture), being 5 per cent, on first 100, and 2 per cent, on remainder, with 5 per cent, all round on furniture. Dr. Warner, on behalf of the defendant, deposed that when he ceased negotiating with Messrs. Chesterton he had given up all ideas of taking the house, but Messrs. Howell, Son and Bonnin re-introduced it for his con- sideration. Ultimately, Mr. jJusiice Grantham gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed less 2 iOs. on the first 100, as Messrs. Chesterton had agreed to accept 2 per cent, all round in the first instance in the event of a sale. Counsel for tli<> plaintiffs : Mr. Aspland, Q.C. (in- structed by Mr. J. H. H^itin) ; counsel tor the defendant ; Mr. K. J. Wright (instructed by Messrs. Cookson, Wain- wright and Co.). Robins, Snell and Gore v. M'Kay. Westminster County Court, 12 November, 1890. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 470. Several agents employed Notice given when letting effected by one of them Defendant only liable to successful agent. The plaintiffs in this case sought to recover 2 10s. , being half commission on th letting of the defendant's COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 225 house, and a further suai of 1 7s. for printing and adver- tising. A member of the plaintiffs' firm said the defendant called at their office about the letting, and witness advised him to have 300 copies of particulars printed, and have copies sent to house agents, in which case they (the plaintiffs) were to have half the commission if the property was let through another agent, and the whole of it if they were personally successful. That course was agreed to, and ultimately the house was let by Mr. Whiteley, of Westbourne Grove. The defendant was called and denied all knowledge of the printed particulars, and swore he never authorised the plaintiff to have them done. He did, however, authorise the advertisements, and had paid a sum in respect of them into court. In order to let his house quickly he went to seven or eight agents, all of whom tried to let it, but when the house was let by Mr. Whiteley he (defendant (gave the other agents notice to that effect, and there was an end of the matter. His Honour said the defendant was not liable, and the amount paid into cjurt was all he was bound to pay. Judgment would- therefore be for him, with costs. Collins v. Furneaux. Warwick County. Court, 9 December, 1890. Before his Honour Sir B. Harrison. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvi., p. 587. * Plaintiff not really first introducer Several agents employed Tenant ivith option to purchase. The plaintiff, an auctioneer and house agent, of Leaming- ton, claimed 7 10s., to be amended by consent to 7 17s. 6d. if the claim were established. He also reserved a further claim to commission on sale should a sale be subsequently effected. The defendant was the Rev. W. C. Furneaux, Vicar of Leamington, the house in question, Eastland House, Learn Terrace, Leamington, being his property. Q 226 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. The plaintiff's case was that ihe house had been put into the plaintiffs hands to be let on the understanding that he was to get a tenant if he could at 100 a year, and that there should if necessary be an option of purchase at 1,500. In November, 1889, Major Barker, to whom the house was subsequently let, applied to the plaintiff, and the correspondence culminated in Major Barker calling in April, 1890, when the plaintiff showed him the particulars of Eastland House, described its position, and told him how to get to it, offering him an order to view. Major Barker promised to go and look at the outside of it first. The plaintiff's contention was that he was the first to in- troduce the house to Major Barker. The house, of course, as was usually the case, was placed in the hands of a number of auctioneers, and Mr. Collins was extremely anxious that there should be no mistake as to his introduc- tion of the tenant. Mr. Walter Collins said the house was placed in his hands in July, 1889. His first instructions were for sale, but the house did not sell, and ultimately it was under- stood that he was to let the property at about 100 a year. He knew that it was in the hands of others, and that it was most important there should be no mistake as to his introduction. On the 30th April, 1890, he wrote to the Vicar saying that as Major Barker had informed him that he had been to every agent in the town he wished to in- form him what he (plaintiff) had done in the matter since November. On the 3rd June the Vicar wrote in reply, stating that it was impossible that he could recognise the plaintiffs claim, as the house was introduced to Major Barker through the instrumentality of a personal friend, adding that the plaintiff was not the only local agent who had made a similar claim. It was contended for the defence that the plaintiff was not the person who introduced the tenant, and when he had the opportunity of letting the house he did not give that help to which defendant was entitled. The Vicar would be the very last person to seek to dispute any claim which he believed to be right and proper. Major William Henry Barker was then called, and said he was a retired major, at present living at Eastland House COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 227 He gave evidence to the effect that he first received in- formation about the house from a Mrs. Trethewy. The Eev. W. C. Furneaux said he gave instructions about letting about a month after the attempted sale. In cross-examination he stated that Mrs. Trethewy had told him that she expected to find a tenant for the house in Major Barker. He had not paid any commission, and he did not intend to do so unless under the order of the Court. He had now let the house with the option of the tenant purchasing, and he did not intend to pay any com- mission on that if he could help it. His Honour considered that if Major Barker's evidence was correct, the plaintiff was not the first to draw his (the major's) attention to the house, and gave judgment for the defendant. Mr. Crowther Davies appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hassell for the defendant. Giles v. White. Westminster County Court, 16 January, 1891. Before h s Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 55. Rate of commission in dispute. The plaintiffs, house agents in High Street, Kensington, sued the defendant to recover 7^ per cent, commission on the letting of the mansion 8, Queen Anne's Gate, and a further sum of 5 per cent, on a premium of 500. It appeared that the defendant, who held the premises under a lease from the superior landlord, had written to the plaintiffs giving them instructions to find a tenant. The letter contained full particulars of the property, and stated that the lease had 11 years to run. The rent required was 300 a year, and a premium of 500 would also be required. The plaintiffs introduced the mansion to a committee of gentlemen, who were desirous of obtaining the premises for a club, and ultimately they agreed to take the place on the terms above named, but when the lease was produced, it was found that instead of having 11 years Q2 228 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASKS. to run, it bad only 5^. The committee then refused to pay so much as 500 premium, but after considering the matter, agreed to give 250, which amount the defendant consented to take. When the matter was finally settled, the plaintiff's sent in their account, which included a commision of 7 per cent, on the first year's rental, and 5 per cent, on the 500 premium which the committee would have paid in full had the lease been as represented. The defendant then disputed almost the whole of their account, and con- tended that all he was liable to pay was 5 per cent, on 250. The plaintiffs did not adopt that view, but took pro- ceedings in the High Court, where judgment was entered for the sum which the defendant admitted was owing, and the other matters in dispute were remitted to his Honour Judge Bayley. The learned judge now said there really was no defence. The plaintiffs had received certain instructions in their capacity as house agents, and had carried them out very properly. They had certainly earned their commission on the first year's rent, and they were entitled to commission on the premium as though 500 had been paid, as it was no fault of theirs that the amount was reduced. Judgment would be for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, with costs. Brunt v. Mellon. Macclesfield County Court, 8 January, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Hughes. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 84. Verbal agreement In the absence of special arrangement an a uctioneer cannot act as paid agent both for vendor and purchaser . The plaintiff was an auctioneer at Macclesfield, and was suing tor commission on the sale of three shops in Chester- gate. They were sold for 1,750, and at 1 per cent, the commission amounted to 17 10s. Plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that when defendant first saw him about the property he told him to offer the three shops for sale by private treaty, the price being 2,000. Subsequently de- fendant gave instructions to offer the property by public COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 229 auction, and this was done. The property was not sold, as it did not reach the reserve of 2,000. The fee he charged for this sale was two or three guineas, but defendant only paid 1 10s. In March, 1890, he saw Mr. Mellor again, and received instructions to offer the property by private treaty, and the terms were 1 per cent, commission. Plaintiff took a Mr. Davenport to Mr. MeJlor, and they went over the property. The price asked was 2,000, but Mr. Davenport offered 1,500, as it was in a dilapidated condition. This was refused. Subsequently Mr. Daven- port gave 1,750. There was only one person in the market for' property of that class, and plaintiff was the means of inducing him to purchase it. When lie asked Mr. Mellor for his commission he said he could not afford to pay, as he had lost on his property. He told defendant that he could not afford to pay for a licence and keep clerks and an office open for his convenience without being paid. Cross-examined, the plaintiff stated that he did not, to the best of his recollection, agree to sell the property for 5 commission ; there were other lots also offered at the auction. Mr. Mellor did not tell him if he could find a customer for the Chestergate property for 2,000 he would give him 5. Mr. Davenport was a cousin of his, and he had negotiated a good many purchases for him. Being asked whether it was not customary for estate agents to have these agreements in writing, the plaintiff replied, " It is not always the case in the North of England. It is down South, in Croydon and all round London, where I have a son in the business. We ought to do it, I admit, but it is not usual." Mr. Henry Davenport was called. He stated that the property was first introduced to his notice by Mr. Brunt, who had bought a good deal of property for him, but he had not paid Mr. Brunt any commission, as he did not pay commission when he was buying. For the defence it was submitted that plaintiff having admitted acting as agent for Mr. Davenport, could not also be agent for Mr. Mellor, and cases were quoted in support of this. His Honour concurred in this view and said the case was one of some difficulty, but on the whole he was driven 230 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. to the conclusion that it came within the scope of the recent cases as to agency. The plaintiff practically acted as agent for boih parties, and could not recover. There was nothing in writing. There was no conflict of evidence. Plaintiff gave his evidence in a straightforward manner, and that evidence, and that of Mr. Davenport, had forced itself upon him. Without intending to commit any offence, or to deal in any unscrupulous way, such as occurred in' the cases quoted, yet the relations between them were of such a character that he could not resist the conclusion that the plaintiff was exceeding his authority not his authority as auctioneer, for there it was perfectly clear that if he had sold, he would have been entitled to commission, but in his subsequent relations. According to the facts given in evidence, he had convinced him that he was ageut for both parties, and therefore could not recover this 11 10s. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs. Mr. Hastings appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Sheldon for the defendant. Monk v. Bartram. Queen's Bench Division, 16 January, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Grantham and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 107. Sale of 2)i per cent, on the premium. The defendant agreed to these terms, and ultimately plaintiff let the house to a Mrs. Wyndam, who took an assignment of the lease. After the matter was settled, the account was sent in, and then for the first time the defendant denied her liability. For the defence it was stated that the plaintiff had not been given specific instructions to procure a tenant, and that as what the plaintiff had done was to bring about an assignment of the lease he was not entitled to charge commission as for letting. The learned judge, however, asked what the difference was ? The plaintiff had done all he undertook to do, and had earned his commission, both on the rental and on the premium. His Honour added, " Among the large number of commission cases which come into this court, a defence of this sort crops up about once a year, but there is abso- lutely nothing in it." He gave judgment for the plaintiff for the full auuouut of his claim, with costs. Mason v. Dixie. Queen's Bench Division, 11 February, 1891. Before Mr. Baron Pollock. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 150. Disputed authority to employ agent Husband and wife. In this action MX. W. B. Mason, auctioneer and estate agent, of Windsor, sought to recover 200 commission from Sir Beaumont Dixie, in respect of the sale of certain property near Windsor, known as " The Fishery." The plaintiff, it appeared, had from time to time let " The Fishery " for the defendant. In 1839 the present Dowager Duchess of Sutherland, then Mrs. Blair, pur- chased the adjoining estate, known as " The Willows," and requiring more land asked the plaintiff if she could purchase a portion of " The Fishery " estate. He approached Lady Dixie on the subject, and she, in replying by letter, stated that the terms of the purchase of the property would not allow of it, but added that Sir Beaumont would be willing COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 233 to dispose of the whole property for 15, 000, including the furniture. Plaintiff forwarded this offer to Mrs. Blair, who was then in America, but receiving no reply the matter went off. In 1890, however, the estate was purchased by the late Duke of Sutherland for 11,000, and plaintiff claimed commission on that sum, contending that he had introduced the parties, and therefore was entitled to be paid commission. For the plaintiff it was submitted that authority had been given to him to enter this property on his books as for sale, and on the other hand, for the defen- dant, it was urged that no such authority had been given at any time, as when Lady Dixie had done so, she acted without the authority of her husband. The plaintiff's counsel, in opening the case, read a voluminous correspondence which had passed between the parties in reference to " The Fishery," and the whole of which had been conducted by her ladyship. Mr. Mason having given evidence generally in support of his case said, in reply to a question from the learned judge, that it made no difference as to the amount of com- mission whether the whole of the arrangements were carried out by him, or whether he merely introduced a purchaser. His commission was 5 per cent, on the first 100, 2i on the next 4,900, and 1| on all above that amount. His rate of commission was on the auctioneers' and valuers' scale, the same as used by Messrs. Fare- brother, Ellis, Clark and Co., Messrs. Debenham and Co., and Messrs. Walton and Lee. It was not correct that he was endeavouring to obtain a commission from both parties. It was stated on behalf of the defendant that he would not dispute that if the plaintiff was entitled to anything he was entitled to the whole of his commis- sion. Four points, however, were raised: (1) That there was no employment of Mr. Mason ; (2) If em- ployed, there was no authority for the employment ; (3) That he did not effect the sale ; (4) That he was not instru- mental in bringing about the sale. Lady Florence Dixie was called. She stated that she had had dealings with the plaintiff for the letting of " The Fishery " from time to time, but only on one occasion had she authorised him to put it on his books for sale. When 234 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. she was asked whether she was willing to sell a portion of the property, she showed the letter to Sir Beaumont, and he replied that the terms on which be purchased the pro- perty would not allow of his dividing it, even if he wished to do so. He directed her to write to Mr. Mason to that effect, which she did, adding without his authority a rider, the substance of which was that Sir Beau- mont would not be indisposed to sell right out for 15,000. With the exception of one person, who was not sent by Mr. Mason, no one ever came to. view the premises with the idea of buying. Mrs. Blair was not a personal friend of hers at that time. In 1889, hearing that the late Duke of Sutherland had married Mrs. Blair, she wrote to the Duke telling him that she had an offer from a building firm for " The Fishery, ' and asking him whether he wished to buy it, mentioning the sum that was offered. She received a reply stating that the price was too high. She did not tell Sir Beaumont that she had written until she had received the reply. He at first refused to sell the property, but afterwards acquiesced in her wishes, and the property was disposed of to the Duke. The Duchess of Sutherland said that in October 1888, she had purchased "The Willows," and afterwards wishing to purchase some more land, she sent for Mr. Mason with regard to purchasing a portion of " The Fishery" estate. On receiving the answer declining to sell, the negotiations dropped. At that time she had no intention of purchasing the whole of the estate. The nego- tiations with regard to the purchase of the estate were commenced by Lady Florence Dixie. The Duke of Sutherland gave evidence in substantiation of that of the previous witnesses, and Sir Beaumont Dixie, the defendant, was called and said that he owned " The Fishery " from 1878 to 1890. When Lady Florence showed him the letter with reference to the sale of a portion of the property, he told her that he had no power to sell. He did not give her authority to tell Mr. Mason that he would sell the whole for 15,000. In cross-exam- ination the defendant said that Lady Florence conducted a good deal of his business and correspondence : he himself did not write a single letter in reference to the sale of COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 235 "The Fishery." The subject was never mentioned between them until Lady Florence brought the Duke's reply to him, and then he authorised her to conduct the negotiations. At the conclusion of the evidence the learned judge re- viewed the facts of the case, and gave judgment for the defendant, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Bray and Mr. Rawlinson ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Winch, Q.C., and Mr, Sankey. Nicholas v. Watkins. Beading County Court, 5 February, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Lushington and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 150. Denial of retainer, and that purchaser ivas introduced by plaintiff. This action was brought by Mr. W. B. Nicholas, auc- tioneer and estate agent, of Reading, to recover the sum of 14 5s., claimed by the plaintiff for commission on the sale of the lease of the defendant's premises, which the People's Investment Company, Limited, had agreed to purchase. The claim had been amended by the plaintiff (in conse- quence of the actual amount of the purchase money being less than the sum asked for by the defendant from the plaintiff) to the sum of 37 10s. The defendant denied having instructed the plaintiff, and urged as a second plea that the sale was not brought about by anything done by the plaintiff. Mr. Watson, the plaintiff's managing clerk, gave evi- dence to the effect that he had called upon the defendant, who said he wished to dispose of the lease of his premises, No. 50, Broad-street. The defendant gave him particulars and took him over the premises, but they were to arrange about commission, as defendant would not pay the 5 per cent, which was quoted. A day or two afterwards he again called on defendant and settled that the commission should be 2-J- per cent, on the purchase money, and 5 per cent, on one year's rental, whicn the defendant said he would not 286 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. mind paying. Advertisements were inserted iu the news- papers, in consequence of which a Mr. Mcllroy wrote to the plaintiff for and received particulars and an order to view, and on the same day Mr. Mcllroy returned the order to view, stating that the price was too high. The plaintiff was called to corroborate this evidence. For the defence, Mr. Kennedy was called to prove that he had heard from Mr. Mcllroy that the premises were for sale, and he afterwards called on the defendant and kok instructions with regard to a sale and the payment to him of a commission of 2 per cent. It was also stated in evidence that Mr. Kennedy (who was general manager and secretary to the People's Investment Company) introduced the defendant's premises to the company, which led to a contract being entered into by Mr. Joseph Morns, the chairman of the company, of which Mr. Mcllroy was also a director ; and further that previous to the date of the contract there was a verbal arrangement for Mr. Mcllroy to take a lease of the premises. The defendant, in his evidence, stated that he could not recollect any interview with the plaintiff's clerk after the first call. He would not, however, swear that there had not been other interviews upon the matter. He denied that he had agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission of 2^ per cent, on the purchase money and 5 per cent, on one year's rental. Mr. Joseph Morris was called and gave evidence as to the negotiations and signing of the contract on the part of the company, and Mr. Mcllroy also gave evidence for the defendant. , His Honour summed up the case, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. A. H. Spokes ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. A. J. David. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 237 Stokes and Finder v. Nash. Bloomsbury County Court, 13 February s 1891. Before his Honour Judge Bacon. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 171. Principal going behind agent's back and completing transaction Commission recoverable. Messrs. Stokes and Finder, auctioneers and surveyors, of 49, Upper Baker Street, N W., sued to recover commission on the letting of No. 22, York Place, Portman Square. The plaintiffs' case was that they had introduced a tenant to Mr. Nash. After some negotiations, Mr. Nash refused the terms offered by the tenant, but he afterwards, without informing Messrs. Stokes and Finder, let the house to her on the terms she originally offered. His Honour, in giving judgment, commented in severe terms on the immorality of attempting to evade payment of house agents' commissions. Several cases had been before him, in which house agents had sued for commissions on letting houses. It was very easy for anyone desiring to let a house to put it into the hands of agents, and when they had found a tenant to refuse his terms, and then to go behind the agents' backs and let to the tenant without informing them. This was no defence, and the house agents were entitled to their commission if they had been the means of introducing the tenant to the landlord. In this case a letting had resulted from the plaintiffs' intro- duction, and, therefore, without imputing any dishonesty to the defendant, he should give judgment for the full amount claimed, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Fease (instructed by Messrs. Fisher, Carter and Moir). 238 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Minahan v. Stoneham. Brighton County Court, 13 February, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 171. No effectual business done Commission not recoverable. This was a claim for balance of commission, made by Mr. Jeremiah Minahan, who in 1888 and 1889 was carrying on business as an estate and house agent. He had sold some land for defendant for which he charged 22 10s. commis- sion, out of which he gave defendant credit for 9 7s. 6d. An agreement was read, in which defendant promised to pay plaintiff 40 if he obtained 1,800 for some land of which plaintiff was negotiating the sale. He did not succeed in this, but afterwards sold six plots of land to a Mr. Wilmshurst for 900, and charged 2 per cent, commission. Defendant demurred to this charge, writing that 1 per cent, was sufficient commission. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he had written asking for 20 only, and ex- plained this by saying that, as he had sold half the land for 900, he was then willing to take half of the 40 that had been promised if he sold the whole plot. He had written to Mr. Stoneham, sending draft agreements by which the plaintiff was to take the land, in partnership with a builder, and build on it, but these referred to a contem- plated partnership with a Mr. Tavener, and had nothing to do with the sale to Mr. Wilmshurst. Mr. Wilmshurst said that Mr. Minahan had approached him with a view to a building partnership, but as he found by the agreement that the whole responsibility would rest with him, he declined. He afterwards took the land from Mr. Stoneham, under the building agreement. He had not been able to complete the agreement, and had never paid Mr. Stoneham anything. Mr. Stoneham deposed that he had never employed plaintiff to obtain anyone to take the land on a building agreement. He let the land to Wilmshurst, as the latter declined to enter into partnership with Minahan. He had never received any money from Wilmshurst, but. on the contrary, he had advanced him 1,600 towards the con- COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 239 struction of the houses. As Wilmshurst had failed to carry out his contract, he (defendant) had resumed possession. His Honour gave judgment for the defendant, with costs. Fredericks v. Floyd. Watford County Court, 9 February,1891. Before his Honour Judge Holl. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 171. Indirect introduction Commission recoverable Advertisement. The claim here was for 7 5s., commission on 145, the price at which the plaintiff had succeeded in selling the defendant's business. The plaintiff was a house agent at Hemel Hempstead, and he stated that in consequence of a message from Mrs. Floyd, he went to see her. She told him that she wanted to sell her business, and that she had been in communication with a person to buy it for 120. She told him that she had not put the matter into anyone else's hands, and on going into it, he told her that he thought he could get her a better price than she had asked. He advertised the business, and a Mr. Hall wrote to him, and he (plaintiff) took him to Mrs. Floyd's. While they were there examining the books, Mrs. Floyd called his atten- tion to a person outside, who had come to see about the business. That person, a Mr. Fryett, came through the information he had received from a person who had answered the advertisement, and he ultimately took the business. Plaintiff therefore applied to the defendant for the commission. The defendant said that she had agreed with Mr. Fredericks that if she sold the business she was only to pay the cost of the advertisements. She succeeded in selling the business through an advertisement cut from a daily London paper, which had been sent to her by a Mr. Larkiri. Mr. Larkin, she admitted, was one of the persons introduced by the plaintiff. His Honour said that the law in the case was quite clear. Unless there were special terms, the ordinary ways of house agents were acted upon, and the circumstances in 240 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. this case seemed to point to that. He thought the plain- tiff entitled to the commission in equity as well us in law, for he seemed to have introduced about twenty different persons. He accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff' for the amount claimed. Mr. Annesley appeared for the plaintiff. Rutter v. Downes. Lord Mayor's Court, 24 February, 1891. Before the Assistant- Judge and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 226. Commission Alleged negligence Claim and counter-claim. This was an action brought by Mr. J. Butter, land agent, of West Norwood, against Mr. C. Downes, a dealer in land, carrying on business at 52, Cheapside, to recover 27 17s. 6d., commission on the introduction of a pur- chaser of certain property formerly owned by the defen- dant. The defendant raised a counter-claim for a similar amount, being money received by the plaintiff from Mr. McKenzie, the purchaser of the property, as commission of which the defendant had no knowledge. The action arose out of the purchase and subsequent sale by the detenu a ut ui ouiiit; freehold, property known as Badger's Hall, Hadleigh, Essex. Defendant purchased the property for 1,000, and after reserving to himself two fields forming the frontage, he instructed the plaintiff to find a purchaser for it, agreeing to give him 2 per cent, commission on the amount of the purchase money. Plaintiff found a purchaser in the person of Mr. McKenzie, to whom the property was sold, less the two fields, for ],llo. It was commission upon this amount that the plaintiff sought to recover. The defendant's answer to the claim was that the usual custom had been departed from in the transaction, that the plaintiff negligently conducted the negotiation with the purchaser, and did not obtain the best price he might have got for it, and that his firm of Rutter and Co. received a commission or fee from the purchaser, which he sought to recover back. COMPENDIUM OB' COMMISSION CASES. 241 The questions lefi to the jury were whether or not the plaintiff's business at Norwood was separate from that of Butter and Co. in London, and whether the defendant was aware that when the contract was signed by the purchaser the plaintiff's firm or the plaintiff was to receive a com- mission from the purchaser ? The jury answered these questions in the affirmative, and judgment was thereupon entered for the plaintiff on the claim and counter-claim. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Lewis Glyn ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Pickersgill. Towers, Ellis and Co. v. Corfield (Executor). Marylebone County Court, 26 February, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Stonor Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 226. First introducer More than one agent employed. This was an action brought for the recovery of 32 10s., commission on the sale of No. 4, Princes Terrace, Bays- water, to Dr. Cameron. Particulars of the property had been furnished by the plaintiffs, and a somewhat protracted negotiation ensued, resulting in an offer of 1,100, which was positively de- clined. This being so, the plaintiffs, in a letter which they wrote their client stated that it would be useless to pro- long the negotiations " at present." The plaintiffs subse- quently ascertained that Dr. Cameron had become the purchaser at 1,300, the sale having been concluded by- Messrs. H. and B. Powell. Upon this the plaintiffs sent in their claim for commission and were met with the state- ment that two commissions could not be paid. They were, therefore, forced to bring this action. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs, being the first to bring the parties together in the relation of vendor and purchaser, were entitled to their commission, and gave judgment for them accordingly, with costs. Messrs. Powell, in respect of the same transaction, re- ceived an honorarium of ten guineas for their services, with costs, the defendant consenting to that arrangement. 242 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Suett v. Dillon. Devon Assizes, 6 March, 1891. Before the Lord Chief Justice. Keported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 244. Indirect introduction Division of commission. The plaintiff was suing for 58, balance of commission on the sale of Tremerton Castle, and 85 for goods sold and delivered. The defendant set up a counter-claim for 87 17s. 5d., balance of account for money lent and goods sold, and 125 for dishonoured acceptances. The case for the plaintiff was that it had been arranged between the parties that they should divide the profits they derived through the sale of Tremerton Castle. The de- fendant bought the Castle at an auction sale, and it was arranged by him and the plaintiff to hand over the pro- perty to a Mr. Bryant for a consideration, Mr Bryant de- clining to bid at the auction for personal reasons. The " consideration " amounted to 216, and a cheque for that amount was received by the plaintiff, who handed it over to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that his share was 108, but he had already received 50, which reduced his share to the amount of his claim. Plaintiff admitted part of the counter-claim, but disputed the dishonoured accept- ances, for which he deposed he had received no value. Lord Coleridge said that he inclined to the belief that the defendant was the man who really purchased the Castle for Mr. Bryant, and therefore he was entitled to the profit on the transaction. At the same time, it was clear that the defendant would not have been able to get into com- munication with Mr. Bryant had it not been for the plaintiff, and the latter was entitled to a share of the profits. He (the judge) did not think, however, that the plaintiff ought to receive half of the profits, but rather that he was only entitled to 50 from the defendant. With regard to the bills that had passed between the parties, they were clearly not accommodation acceptances, but ordinary acceptances in discharge of debts due from plaintiff to the defendant. Judgment would be for the de- fendant for 125, less 30 for the goods sold. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 243 Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Duke ; counsel for the defendant: Mr. Bucknill, Q.C., and the Hon. Bernard Coleridge. Clark v. Sandys. Lord Mayor's Court, 3 March, 1891. Before Sir W. T. Charley and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 245. Several agents employed Two commissions paid First introducer. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Samuel B. Clark and Sons, estate agents, sued the Hon. Michael Sandys to recover 20 10s., being commission on the introduction of a tenant of 4, Devonshire Street, of which property the defendant was formerly the owner. The plaintiffs received particulars of the house, and a board was put up by them announcing that it was to be let. A Mrs. Paget called on the plaintiffs, and she was given particulars and an order to view. Mrs. Paget returned and said she liked the house, but had not quite made up her mind to take it. Some time afterwards, the plaintiffs found that the board which they had put up had been taken down, and the house let. Upon making in- quiries, they found that Mrs. Paget had taken the house on the terms that had been given to her by the plaintiffs. Application was then made by the plaintiffs to defendant for commission at the rate of 5 per cent, on the rent, which was 110, and also on the premium of 300 20 10s. in all. In reply, they received a letter from the defendant, informing them that the purchaser had been introduced by Messrs. Maple and Co., of Tottenham Court Road, to whom the commission had been paid. This was the defence now set up. The evidence of Mrs. Paget, taken on commission, was read, in which she stated that Mr. Blundell Maple, M.P., had introduced her to the house, and the defendant, in his evidence, said that the house was placed on the books of several house agents, including Messrs. Maple, and Mrs. Pa,get was introduced by the latter firm, who had been R2 244 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. paid the usual commission. It was not till after Mrs, Paget took possession that he learned the lady had viewed the house on an order from the plaintiffs. The jury found for the plaintiffs. Counsel for the plaintiffs: Mr. C. C. Scott; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Edgar Foa. Theobalds v. Meakin. City of London Court, 10 April, 1891. Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 370. Denial of retainer No instructions given. In this case the plaintiff, Mr. W. Theobalds, was an architect and surveyor and the defendant was the owner of certain land, and was engaged in building arrangements with regard to it. The present claim was for commission for obtaining builders to take the land and erect houses upon it. There were three heads under which the claim was made. The first was for 22 10s., for the letting of land at Anerley ; the second, 13, for letting land at Alton Road ; and the third, 14 10s., the value of certain plans which were made by the plaintiff as a surveyor, and which were given to the defendant, who was also a surveyor, to examine. The defendant had unfortunately lost the original plans, and the consequence was that the plans now sued for had to be made all over again. The transactions took place four or five years before the action was brought, and the reason the plaintiff did not proceed sooner was that though the matter was placed in his- hands in 1887 he was only to be paid upon the buildings being erected and the leases granted, by which the defen- dant could secure the ground rents. In 1884 the defen- dant was the owner of the land he referred to at Anerley,. and he was desirous of obtaining a builder who would erect certain buildings upon the land. A conversation took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, the re- sult of which was that the plaintiff was to have 22 10s. if he obtained a man who would build. This he did,. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 245 introducing a Mr. Barnes, and he also alleged that he did the other work claimed for. The defence was that the defendant never instructed the plaintiff to obtain a builder. . He (defendant) adver- tised the land to let, and he said the plaintiff amongst others answered it, asking for particulars. These were sent him, and it was those which the plaintiff called " instructions." As to Barnes's introduction, the business did not result from any step the plaintiff took. The learned Commissioner having summed up the jury found for the defendant. Mr. Lynden Bell was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Tattershall appeared for the defendant. Drew v. Williams. Kidderminster County Court, 21 April, 1891. Before his Honour Sir Bupert Kettle. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., jj. 409. Disputed agreement Non-suit. Mr. Thomas Harris Drew, auctioneer, of Stourport, here sued for 11 14s. 6d., balance of account with re- gard to charges of commission on the sale of Kingston House, Arley Kings, and some timber at Ombersley. The plaintiff's case was that in July, 1890, he had sold Kingston House by auction to the defendant, who then commissioned him to find either a purchaser for the house or a yearly tenant. The house was advertised, and in December negotiations were opened wit!i Mr. George Banks, of Stourport. Then he saw the defendant, who said he should be quite satisfied if he obtained 950 for the property. Mr. Banks withdrew his offer, and the plaintiff secured two gentlemen named Glover as intending purchasers for 950. An agreement was drawn up, and then plaintiff communicated with the defendant, who replied that he could not then accept a purchase, as he had himself arranged to let the house to Mr. Banks on a yearly taking. From the cross-examination of the plaintiff, however, it was shown that although an agreement was drawn up and signed as between the plaintiff and the 246 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Messrs. Glover for the purchase of the house, no sum was stated on the agreement as the price which was to be paid. The plaintiff also admitted one or two inaccuracies in the bill which he sent in to the defendant. In the result the judge entered a non-suit without costs. Counsd for the plaintiff: Mr. Vachell (instructed by Messrs. Ivens and Morton) ; counsel for the defendant': Mr. Plumptre (instructed by Mr. Prior). Marler and Bennett v. Roberts. Brompton County Court, 22 April, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 445. Letting aflat Rate of commission. Messrs. Marler and Bennett, the auctioneers and estate agents, suedMr. J. E. Roberts, a builder, of South Kensing- ton, for commission in respect of letting a flat atBarkstone Gardens, South Kensington. The plaintiffs' case was that they let a flat, Barkstone Gardens, on a lease for seven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, to Mr. Basil Williams, at 155 a year. On that rental value they claimed 5 per cent, commission, but the defendant disputed the claim on the ground that the usual ^commission paid for letting flats was 8 per cent., and 'he paid a sum representing that percentage on the letting into court. The defendant did not dispute the agency, but contended he should not have to pay more than 3 per cent, for commission. The judge decided that 5 per cent, was a reasonable charge, and gave a verdict for the plaintiffs, with costs. Mr. A. B. Eichards appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. T. J. Eobinson for the defendant. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 247 Price and another v. Lovegrove. Queen's Bench Division, 29 April, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Lawrance. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 445. Purchase of public house Goodwill Defendant substantially obtaining what he wanted. This case came before the Court iu the form of an appeal from the decision of the County Court judge at Birming- ham, who had given judgment for the plaintiffs. Ti;e action was brought by the plaintiffs, who resided at Birmingham, to recover commission on the sale of the Buckley Arms, Dinas Mawddwy, and the learned County Court judge gave judgment in favour of plaintiffs. It appeared that in September, 1888, the defendant was desire us of becoming the owner of a hotel or public house, and he accordingly applied to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Price said he knew of a public house which he thought would suit the defendant, and he askeJ the de- fendant to sign an agreement to the effect that he would pay 5 per cent, on the purchase money in the event of his taking the public house. Subsequently the defendant heard that the house was the Buckley Arms, at Dinas Mawddwy, that it was held as an annual tenancy from Sir E. Buckley, and that he could obtain possession with- out paying anything for goodwill. The defendant even- tually took possession, and paid the outgoing tenant 730 tor the furniture, fixtures, and stock-in-trade. On the present appeal it was submitted for the defendant that, as he had not purchased any goodwill or interest in the house, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any commission, and that, therefore, the decision of the County Court judge ought to be reversed. Their lordships dismissed the appeal, with costs, hold- ing that as the defendant was the keeper of the public house which was introduced to him by the plaintiffs, and as he had obtained what he required, there was no reason why he should not pay for it. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Vachell ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Brooke Little. 248 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. White and others v. Bainton. Westminster County Court, 30 April, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 445. First introducer Defendant himself selling to party introduced. In this case the plaintiffs were Messrs. White, Druce and Brown, who sought to recover commission alleged to be due on the sale of the business premises No. 203, Strand. It appeared that in the latter part of the year 1889 plaintiffs had received a communication from the defendant relative to the sale of the goodwill and lease of his business, and immediately took steps to find a purchaser. Among others who were brought into communication with the de- fendant was a gentleman named Cuthbertson, who was given a card to view. He went to see the premises, and afterwards told plaintiffs that he did not intend to pur- chase. This was in January, 1890, and from that time to the end of the year the plaintiffs continued doing their best to get a customer. It ultimately came to their know- ledge that the defendant had sold the business to Cuth- bertson about three months after the first introduction, and as soon as they heard that that was so, they put forward their claim to commission. The claim was based on the usual house agents' charges namely, 7 per cent, on the rental, 5 per cent, on the premium, and 5 per cent, on stock and fixtures. Mr. F. Stanley May, assistant to the plaintiffs, was called, and gave evidence as to the negotiations between his firm and the defendant, and Mr. C. J. Cuthbertson said that he had purchased the business. He certainly was first introduced to the defendant by the plaintiffs, and had it not been for them he probably would never have heard of the defendant. Mr. Frank Brown said he was one of the plaintiffs, and had taken some part in the introduction of Cuthbert- son to the defendant. There was absolutely no doubt that the purchaser was first introduced by his firm. Witnesses were called to contradict this version of the transaction. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 249 In giving judgment, however, his Honour said that he ihad no doubt whatever that the plaintiffs were the first to introduce a purchaser to the defendant, and as he had benefited by their services, he was liable to pay for them. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiffs for the full amount of the claim, with costs. Mr. Tyrrell was counsel for the plaintiffs. Addison v. Miles. Lewes County Court, 12 May, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Martineau. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 496. First introducer Alleged new transaction. The plaintiff here claimed commission on the sale of a house at Lewes. He had written to the defendant and asked him if he would 'pay him a commission if he intro- duced to him a purchaser for the house. Defendant replied that he would pay him 1 per cent, if he could obtain him 260 for the house. Plaintiff found a friend of defendant's, a Mr. Colwall, but who defendant did not know was wishing to buy a house, and who offered 240. Defendant adhered to his price of 260, and negotiations went on for some time, when they dropped, but afterwards Mr. Colwall wrote direct to defendant and asked him if he would accept 255 for the house. Defendant replied in the affirmative, and the house changed hands. Plaintiff claimed his commission, but defendant contended that the bouse was sold through entirely fresh negotiations, and that, therefore, lie was not liable for commission. He, however, sent the plaintiff a sovereign for his endeavours to get him a purchaser. His Honour held that the defendant was liable to pay commission as a matter of fact and of law, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. 250 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Major v. Tarrant and Son. Queen's Bench Division, 9 June, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Lawrance. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 570. An agreement in respect of which commission can be recovered must be one enforceable by law. This was a claim for 100 commission on the sale of the defendants' business. The plaintiff carries on a- general agency business, and the defendants are printers. It appeared that in March, 1890, it was proposed that the defendants should sell their business to a projected com- pany to be called the South London Leader and General Printing and Publishing Company, of which one Adams was to be secretary. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants that in considera- tion of the plaintiff arranging with Adams or the proposed company for the purchase of defendants' business, lease, goodwill, &c., they should pay the plaintiff 200, one- half in cash and one-half in shares of the company. The plaintiff accordingly rntered into negotiations, and secured an offer which he submitted to the defendants, who wrote on the 22nd March to the plaintiff to the effect that they accepted Adams' offer to purchase the business on behalf of the proposed company for 1,700, possession to be given to the company, and upon certain other terms mentioned in the letter, a formal contract to be prepared and signed to the foregoing effect, and the draft to be submitted to the defendants' solicitor for approval. Adams appended his signature to the letter assenting to its terms. The company was registered on the 2nd May, but it appeared to have come to nothing, and the money sub- scribed by the few shareholders composing it was returned. Evidence of the facts having been given on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned judge, in giving judgment for the defendants, said that it was clearly the intention of the parties that there should be a sale to the proposed company, and the agreements entered into were with a view to such a sale. The agreement of the 22nd March, not being enforceable, did not entitle the plaintiff to COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 251 recover the agreed commission. Nor under the circum- stances could he recover on a quantum meruit. He had not shown that it was through any fault of the defendants that he had been prevented earning the commission, or that they had derived any benefit from his exertions. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. T. E. Crispe and Mr. H. Smith ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. H. J. Bonsey. Tanner v. Green. Queen's Bench Division, 15 May, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Hawkins. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 598. Negotiations as toprice Vendor entitled to accept highest offer. This was an action for commission on the sale of farms in South Africa for 20,000, 1,000 being the amount of the claim. The plaintiff's particulars of claim were that, in a letter of the 23rd September, 1889, he had offered to sell for the defendant farms in the Transvaal for a commission of 5 per cent., and that the defendant by a letter of the 25th September authorised the plaintiff to sell seven farms contain- ing 70,000 acres in Lydenburg for 20,000, and that the plaintiff having sold the land for that sum the defendant washable for the commission. The plaintiff alleged that he had introduced one Pope to the defendant as a purchaser of the lands at that price and that he became the pur- chaser at that price. In the alternative the plaintiff alleged that he introduced Pope to the defendant as a pur- chaser or a person ready to become a purchaser at the price stated, and that it was implied in the contract that the defendant should not unreasonably refuse to accept as a purchaser any person introduced by the plaintiff and ready to become a purchaser, but that he unreasonably refused to accept Pope as the purchaser, and that so the commission was due. The defendant denied any agree- ment, and alleged that any agreement he entered into was conditional upon a sale being effected, and that no sale was effected to any person introduced by the plaintiff, and that any person introduced by the plaintiff thought the 252 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. price asked too high, and was not in a position to com- plete the purchase at tlie price required. The facts seemingly amounted to this : that Green had told Tanner that he had farms to sell in South Africa for 20,000, and the plaintiff's case rested on the fact that this offer was never withdrawn. The plaintiff had introduced Pope, who was willing to give 20,000, but the solicitors wrote to him that the seller would not accept less than 21,000, and Pope only offered 20,000; and meanwhile another person not introduced by the plaintiff offered 22,000, and the land was sold to him. Mr. Justice Hawkins having taken time to consider his judgment, delivered it in favour of the defendant. The question, he said, was whether the plaintiff, who claimed the commission, had introduced the purchaser, and he thought he had not. On the contrary, the pro- posed purchaser he introduced had only offered 20,000, and the property was sold to another person for 22,000. The truth, in the opinion of the learned judge, was that the two parties were trying to get the property as cheaply as they could, and while Pope was hesitating, his offers were used to enhance the price to the other party, and so Pope had lost the property and the plaintiff had not earned the commission. Judgment was therefore given for the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Willis, Q.C,, and Mr. C. E. Jones ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lockwood. Q.C., and Mr. L. Glyn. Tucker v. Savage. Queen's Bench Division, 4 June, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Wright. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 598. Alternative claim Commission or damages for being prevented from earning commission Revocation of agreement. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against an agricultural machinery manufacturer, of King's Lynn, to recover 400, either as commission for finding a purchaser for the defendant's business, or as damages for alleged breach of contract in preventing him (plaintiff) earning COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION GASES. 253 the 'commission. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had agreed in writing that in considera- tion of his finding a purchaser for the defendant's business, including land, stock, buildings, patents, and goodwill, or a person who would form a limited company to purchase the concern at 40,000, payable half in cash and half in shares, he would pay him (plaintiff ) 1 per cent, commission. The plaintiff alleged that he found a purchaser, but the negotiations came to an end owing to the defendant refusing to incur the expense of a valuation of the premises, &c. The plaintiff could not afford to incur the expense, which would have amounted to 300 or 400, out of his commission of 1 per cent, on the transaction. The defendant admitted writing the letters relied on by the plaintiff, but denied that he promised to pay the plaintiff commission, unless a company was formed through the plaintiff's introduction, to take over the busi- ness. No such company had been formed, and the plain- tiff had rendered no services to entitle him to any commis- sion. The defendant further said that he gave the plaintiff notice in writing of the revocation of his appointment or authority, and that prior to the notice of revocation the plaintiff did not produce any person who was willing to purchase the business. At the conclusion of the evidence, his lordship said there was no proof that the defendant agreed to pay for the valuation, and he was therefore justified in revoking the contract. In the alternative he found that plaintiff had not proved damages. Therefore there would be judgment for the defendant, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Mclntyre ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Hopkinson. 254 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Re The Sovereign Life Assurance Company (Salters' Claim). Chancery Division, 23 June, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Chitty. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxvii., p. 626. Alternative claim Commission or quantum mcruit Who is a " ready and willing " lender ? This was an application by Messrs. H. Salters and Sons, mortgage brokers, to rank as creditors in tbe win ding- up of tbe above company for commission earned, or, in tbe alternative, for damages. It appeared tbat tbe company, by a letter of the 14th July, 1887, authorised tbe appli- cants to negotiate for them a large mortgage advance, and tbe letter continued, " If directly or indirectly through your negotiations or introduction the loan is procured, we agree to pay you a commission of f per cent, on tbe amount." The applicants introduced mortgagees, but a petition for the winding-up of the company having been presented, tbe intending mortgagees refused to complete, and, although tbe consent of the Court was afterwards obtained by tbe provisional liquidator lor proceeding witli the negotiations, the transaction ultimately fell through. The applicants contended that they bad done all that was required to be done on their parr, and had performed all the services for which the commission was to be paid. The Official Liquidator contended that the commission was not payable, the transaction not havii:g been completed. Mr. Justice Chitty, having stated the facts and read tbe correspondence (which was voluminous), continued : It is clear that the applicants never procured from tbe intend- ing mortgagees a contract or any binding obligation to make the loan. The latter, no doubt, on the procuration of the applicants did become and were ready and willing to entertain the proposal for the loan, and they proceeded to negotiate on the subject, and were willing at one time to agree as to some of tbe more important terms, but the negotiations fell through before the terms were finally settled. It was, however, argued as tbe meaning of the expression (in the letter of the 14th July, " if the loan is procured," that, on the authority of Green v. Lucan and COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 255 Fisher v. Drewitt, the applicants Lad procured a person ready and willing to make the loan on the terms proposed. I, however, hold on the facts that the applicants did not even procure such a person. Obviously the procuring a person willing to negotiate about the matter is not suffi- cient. The readiness and willingness required must be a continued readiness and willingness to go on with the loan according to the usual course of business in such a trans- action. Where the broker obtains a contract from his principal, the matter stands on a different footing. If the applicants in the present case had obtained a contract from the intending mortgagees to advance the money, and the matter had afterwards not been completed by reason of defects in the title of the company to the property, it may well be that the commission would have been earned. But if A employs B to procure a ruyer for his horse at a price, and B gets C to go and look at the horse, and C for reasons, good or bad, or for no reason at all, although he negotiates, declines to buy, the commission is not earned. So, though he expresses his willingness, but in such a manner as not to bind himself, and afterwards declines to proceed, the commission is not earned. I will give another illustration of my meaning. If A employs B to procure a loan of 1,000 on his bond, and B finds C. who says that he is willing to make the advance if A will pay C's solicitor a fee for negotiating the loan, to which A does not agree, the commission is not earned. I hold, then, that if the case depended solely on the letter of the!4th July the commission was not earned. His Lordship then considered further contentions of the applicants, and held them to be un- tenable, and continued : In regard to the claim for damages, the applicants cannot recover on a quantum meruit, inasmuch as the contract was entire, and the whole of the services agreed to be rendered were not rendered. Nor can they recover damages on the ground that the com- pany by any act or default prevented them from perform- ing the services. There are no facts to justify such a claim. The company would have been only too glad to get the money, which might have saved them from the disaster of the winding-up order which was ultimately made. The commencement of the winding-up had not 256 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. disabled the company from proceeding with the proposed loan. The judge gave his sanction to proceed with the negotiation, and the liquidator was desirous of obtaining the money. The appointment of the provisional liquidator, though it may have affected the powers of the directors, did not take away the powers of the company. It was competent for the liquidator to continue the negotiations, and indeed to perform the contract, if there had been any. When the intending mortgagees broke off the negotiations, there was every probability that the sanction of the Court required by section 158 of the Companies Act, 1862, would be granted. Further, counsel for the applicants declined, and rightly declined, to contend that there was any implied contract on the part of the company that an adverse petition to wind up the company should not be presented against them. The result is that there was no default on the part of the company, and the claim for damages has failed. Upon the applicants undertaking not to appeal, the learned judge dismissed the application without costs. Counsel for the applicants : Mr. Fullarton, Q.C., and Mr. H. H. S. Cunynghame ; counsel for the official liquidator : Mr. Whitehouse, Q.C., and Mr. Hull. Coates v. Fry. York Assizes, 29 July, 1891. Before Mr. Justice Day. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxviii.,p. 106. Original introducer More than one commission may be payable ~Wliat amounts to abandonment of negotiations 1 Mr. Christopher Coates, farmer, auctioneer and land agent, of Cleasby, was here suing Mr. Theodore Fry, M.P. for Darlington, for commission on the sale of land. The plaintiff deposed that he had had an interview with Mr. Fry on the 26th December, 1882, at Cleasby. Mr. Fry asked him if he would see his cousin and try to get him to buy some land which adjoined his, and said he- would give him the usual commission if he effected a sale either with his cousin or anyone else. Plaintiff said he would try, and would write to his cousin. He wrote to his- COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 257 cousin that night, saying : I saw Mr. Fry this morning, who asked me if you would buy any of my farm to make yours a better lot. He says he would offer you either 55 acres or above 100. The 55 acres is the low and best part of my farm, which joins yours for more than half a mile. If ever you did think of residing here, it would be a grand piece to get hold of. If you would entertain the matter, drop me a line and I will send tracings of both lots." He received the following letter from Mr. Fry in his own hand- writing : " I enclose traces of two pastures of your farm, which would greatly improve the piece your relative pur- chased. If he would like to entertain the idea of either, please let me know and oblige. The pink piece is about 55 acres, the buff 60 acres, but they might require measurement." There was a tracing in the letter. He could not get the exact date of the letter, because some years ago he had torn a piece of it off to make a memorandum. He received the letter somewhere about three months after the inter- view. He had frequent interviews with Mr. Christopher North Coates about the purchase of the land, and also with Mr. Fry, and he did his best to get Mr. C. N. Coates to buy the piece. He got him to make an offer, and saw Mr. Fry, who would not accept the offer. Mr. Fry wanted something like a thousand pounds more than the offer. He told his cousin he ought to give more, and he after- wards learned from Mr. Coates that he ultimately purchased the property for 3,000 in May, 1889. From the time first mentioned until Mr. Coates purchased, he was doing his best to promote the sale. No amount of commission was mentioned only the "usual" com- mission. One per cent, was a reasonable commis3ion. In cross-examination the plaintiff stated that he had had several interviews with Mr. Fry during the negotiations, In the twelve months after receiving the letter, by letter and seeing him, he supposed he c >mmunicated with Mr. Fry half a dozen times. He did not keep copies of the letter. He told Mr. Fry that his cousin would buy, but would not give the price asked. He was willing to give 2,500. He did not report him as being ready to give more, but he told Mr. Fry that if he would reduce the price he could get his cousin to give more than he offered. 258 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. He could not sell at Mr. Fry's price. After the expiration of twelve months he left him to do his own work, merely recommending his cousin to buy, and saying he ought to give more than 2,500. Mr. C. N. Coates did ultimately buy the land. Mr. C. N. Coates was then called, and said he would not have known the property was for sale but for his cousin. The sale was ultimately negotiated by Mr. Hutchinson, with whom he was in negotiation for a year,, he should think. When they started the negotiation Mr. Hutchinson asked, on behalf of Mr. Fry, 4,000. He said he would give 2,500, and ultimately he gave 3,500, through the negotiations with Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Fry's solicitor. The defence was that Mr. Hutchinson was acting as Mr. Fry's agent, and could claim commission. It was urged that the sale had not been effected by the plaintiff, and that the point for the jury was that nothing had been done by plaintiff's agency for so long that Mr. Fry put the matter in the hands of his solicitors to negotiate. The result of plaintiff's conduct was that they had drawn the reasonable inference that he had abandoned the negotia- tion. Having paid one commission, Mr. Fry was naturally loth to pay another. The judge said that, as a rule, if a person employed an agent to conduct a sale he was liable, but he might take ic- out of his hands and not pay if the agent did nothing during years after, or the matter might be considered to be dropped, particularly if they afterwards got hold of some new person. But plaintiff never dropped it altogether, but communicated from time to time with Mr. Fry or his cousin, who ultimately bought, although he did so after negotiating with Mr. Hutchinson, who, as solicitor for the defendant, might negotiate the thing upon the introduc- tion of the plaintiff. Mr. Theo. Fry, M.P., was then called, and said he was defendant in the action and M.P. for Darlington. He had heard plaintiff's evidence. He did not think any name was mentioned by plaintiff when he first spoke of the sale of the land. He said that if plaintiff could effect a sale he was willing to give the usual commission. After that he COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 259 never had any letter from him on the subject. On one or two occasions about the same time plaintiff spoke to him on the question, and did then mention his cousin's name as a possible purchaser. He accepted what plaintiff stated as to no interview taking place on the subject one year after the date of the conversation. He never heard any- thing from him about the place after one year from the date of the promise. He had sold the property, and Mr. Hutchinson negotiated the sale. He instructed him to take the sale in hand. Mr. Hutchinson came to him about it six months before the purchase, and he became liable for the commission to Mr. Hutchinson. He did not want to pay two commissions. He had no idea that at the time Mr. Hutchinson was negotiating the sale plaintiff was working for him. He had considered for many years that the whole thing was off, or he would have asked Mr. C. N'. Coates what he was doing in the matter. Plaintiff never made any application for commission until after the execution. Mr. Fry was subjected to a long cross-examination, and then Mr. Edward Hutchinson, of the firm of Hutchinson, " Lucas and Meek, solicitors, gave evidence to the effect that he ultimately negotiated the sale of the property to Mr. C. N. Coates. He had sold some land previously for Mr. Pry, part of the same estate, and he knew Mr. Fry was anxious to get rid of the Cleasby Estate. Mr. C. N. Coates, the owner of the adjoining property, struck him as a probable purchaser, and he knew he was a man of considerable means. He met him frequently in the market, and he asked him if he would buy. He had no previous negotia- tions. They had included the commission in the bill of costs not sent in yet. The judge said it did not matter whether defendant had already paid one commission or not if plaintiff was entitled to recover. The question was whether the purchase which eventually took place was brought about through the in-' tervention or agency of the plaintiff. For the defendant it was then contended that plaintiff had done nothing for six years, and his counsel asked the jury if it could be stated that the property was ulti- mately sold through his instrumentality merely because he s 2 260 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. had once or twice mentioned to bis cousin the fact that the land was for sale. Clearly the sale was ultimately effected through the instrumentality of Mr. Hutchinson, who started the game on his own account. Mr. Hutchinson's firm had lodged a claim for commission, and it would be hard if Mr. Fry, having to pay the man who effected the sale, had to pay commission to somebody else who did not. The learned judge, after hearing the plaintift's counsel in reply, said the only question for the jury to determine was whether plaintiff was entitled to commission upon the sale of that property, and he thought they would have no doubt one way or the other as to whether the sale was brought about through the intervention of plaintiff. The law on the subject was that a man was only entitled to commission when he was the person who really brought about the transaction. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered in his favour for 80. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Luck ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. E. Tindal Atkinson, Q.C., and Mr. Bankes. Pritchard v. Reynolds. Conway County Court, 1 October, 1891. Before his Honour Sir Horatio Lloyd. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxviii., p. 348. Where no special agreement auctioneer entitled to commission whether property sold before, at, or subsequent to the auction Custom. Mr. John Pritchard, auctioneer, of Bangor, here sued Messrs. Reynolds, solicitors, Liverpool, for 26 16s. 4d., being commission and disbursements in connection with the sale of the Bryngynog Estate, Llansantffraid. It appeared that the property was sold by private treaty on the eve of the date of the auction sale for 2,500, and for the plaintiff evidence was called to show that the custom was that unless there was a special agreement, the auctioneer was entitled to commission, whether the pro- perty was sold before, at, or subsequent to the auction, the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 261 auctioneer, in the latter event, considering that the pro- pertj remained at his disposition unless he was otherwise notified. The commission charged was 1 per cent. For the defence it was said the agreement was that commission was only to be charged in the event of a sale by auction, but his Honour gave judgment for plaintiff, less 1 7s. 4d. paid into court. Langburn v. Robinson. Middlesbrough County Court, 19 October, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Turner. Reported ESTATES GAXBTTB, Vol.xxxviii.,p. 393. Original introducer entitled to commission, although there may have been a lapse of time. The defendant was sued for 50 commission on the sale of the Queen Hotel at South Bank, Middlesbrough, the plaintiff claiming as assignee of Messrs. Duncan (architect) and Jeff (auctioneer). The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff showe-i that de- fendant was formerly owner of the Queen Hotel. In January, 1890, he had written to Duncan stating that if he could find him a purchaser for the house within 28 days anything he got above 5,000 he could have for himself. Duncan had a conversation with Jeff, and they entered into negotiation with several parties, but failed to effect a sale. Subsequently they had an interview with the defen- dant, who said he would allow them the usual commission if they sold the hotel. Afterwards they found out that de- fendant had sold the hotel to Mr. Prest, with whom they had been in communication, and Mr. Barron submitted that it was through the agency of Messrs. Duncan and Jeff that the house was sold for 5,200. The latter assigned their claim of 50 commission to Langburn for 12, and it was as assignee that the plaintiff now claimed the amount. For the defence it was submitted it had not been proved that Mr. Prest purchased the house through the interven- tion of Duncan and Jeff in order to entitle them to com- mission. Jeff, although he declared he was not Prest's 262 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. agent in this matter, admitted that Prest promised to pay him 10 if he purchased the place, and he paid him 80s. He was therefore the purchaser's agent, whilst Duncan having failed to tind a purchaser according to the terms of the defendant's letter, could not claim any commission. The defendant was called in support of his case. His Honour said that it had been held that when an original negotiation was begun by an agent, no matter if a sale was not effected for several months after,and then effected by the owner and not the agent, the latter, as the original negotiator, was entitled to his commission on the sale. After full consideration he must find for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs. Mr. T. M. Barren appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. E. Barnley for the defendant. Kingwell and Co. v. Garden. Westminster County Court, 23 October, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Bayley. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxviii., p. 420. There must be a binding agreement between the parties before tJve agent can recover commission. In this case Messrs. Kingwell and Co., house agents, sought to recover 67 8s. 6d., commission for the introduc- tion of a tenant for the defendant's premises, 200, Picca- dilly. The plaintiffs had introduced a Mr. Anderson, who agreed to purchase the lease and fixtures on terms ar- ranged between all the parties. The matter was then placed with the solicitors to the defendant, for the execu- tion of the necessary documents. In the meantime the defendant's solicitors required that a sum of 60 in re- spect of the fixtures should be paid by the intending tenant, and that he should execute a binding contract on the agreed terms. Mr. Anderson was, it was argued, perfectly willing and prepared to do so, but before he had time to act, the defendant's solicitors wrote him that, as he had not complied with the terms of their letter, he must con- sider the bargain at an end. The plaintiffs' case was that they had found a responsible tenant, who was anxious and COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 263 willing to complete, and inasmuch as the matter fell through owing to the conduct of the defendant, they were entitled to commission. Mr. Anderson gave evidence in corroboration of the plaintiffs' case. He made an offer of 600, which, how- ever, was subsequently refused, although he was always willing to execute a binding agreement. For the defence it was submitted that it was clear the plaintiffs had not established any title to this commission, and therefore ought to be non-suited. The learned judge in so holding said that an agent was not entitled to commission until he had succeeded in get- ting a binding agreement between the parties. In this case there is no such agreement. Judgment was accord- ingly only given for 4 which had been paid into court by the defendant as out of pocket expenses. Mr. Lynden Bell was counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Pollard appeared for the defendant. ' Melhuish and Co. v. Horncastle and Pember. Bloomsbury County Court, 17 November, 1891. Before hk Honour Judge Bacon and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxviii., p. 514. Agreement to divide commission Cu-stom. In this action Messrs. Frederick H. Melhuish and Co. sued Messrs. Horncastle and Pember to recover half the commission received by the defendants on the sale of a house situated in New Bond-street. Mr. Melhuish gave evidence to the effect that a lady named Barker, who was a client of his, applied to him in April last to find her a house. He made inquiries with regard to the house in New Bond-street and found that it was in the market, and sent Mrs. Barker particulars. He wrote to the solicitors fur the vendor inquiring whether he might introduce a purchaser, and the solicitors referred him to the defendants in this action as the vendor's agents. The witness accordingly wrote the defendants and asked whether the client might look over the premises at a certain time, and wound up his letter with the remark, " I 264 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. assume that you will be agreeable to divide commission." Later in the day a boy from the defendants' office called and stated that it was all right, and the appointment men- tioned would suit. Accordingly witness wrote his client to attend at the premises, which she did, meeting a member of the defendants' firm there, and ultimately purchasing the premises for 1,200. Mr. Melhuish stated that he had had considerable experience in the transfer of property, and alleged that a custom existed in the estate agency business that on agents introducing a purchaser to the vendor's repre- sentative the commission payable to the vendor's agents was dirided between both parties, unless a special arrangement was made. Mrs. Barker gave evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case. She corroborated Mr. Melhuish as to his introduc- ing this property to her, and said that when she attended at the premises she met a member of defendants' firm, who told her in answer to her inquiries that he came at plaintiffs' request, and produced a letter frcm Mr. Melhuish. Mrs. Barker added that it was entirely through the plaintiffs that the house became known to her, and that she asked defendants whether she had better not communic >te any decision she might arrive at to the plaintiffs, but the defendants asked her to communicate with them direct. Mr. Physick (of the firm of Messrs. Physick and Lowe, auctioneers and estate agents) gave evidence as to the custom of dividing commission. For the defence, Mr. Finch and Mr. Pember, the principals, and a number of their clerks gave evidence. The defence was that no agreement had been arrived at to divide commission, and that there was no custom to that effect. The defendants could not remember who had opened the letter of Mr. Melhuish in which he asked for half commission or who attended to the business in April. The defendants also called estate agents to disprove the alleged custom, but in cross-examination these gentlemen admitted that if they had done the work the plaintiffs did, they would have expected to be paid for it. After the judge had summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and ultimately found that Mrs. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 265 Barker had been introduced to the defendants by the plaintiffs ; and that there was an arrangement between the parties to divide commission. As to the custom they could not ajjree. On this finding judgment was given for the plaintiffs for 24, one-half of the net commission received by the defendants, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. G. S. Bowen (instructed by Mr. Falck) ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. G. Ellis (instructed by Messrs. Cooper and Bake). Giles v. Scholiick. Brampton County Court, 24 December, 1891. Before his Honour Judge Stonor. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 17. An agent may take a lease in his private capacity and recover commission cm behalf of his firm. The question raised in this action was whether a person can be both agent and principal in one and the same transaction. The claim was for commission for letting a- house. A clerk in the employment of the plaintiff, an auctioneer and house agent, received instructions with re- spect to a house at Putney which the defendant was anxious to let. After some months the house was taken by the plaintiff for his own use at 105 a year, and he now claimed commission at the rate of 5 per cent, for the first r and 2^ per cent, for the second year. The defendant declined to pay on the ground that the plaintiff could not be both agent and principal. It ap- peared, however, that Mr. Giles had a partner in the business, and the judge held that Mr. Giles took the house in his private capacity, and that his partner had a right to a share in the commission for business done by the firm. It seemed to him, the judge said, that if Mr. Giles had agreed to forego the commission his partner would have had a right of action against him. 266 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Davis v. Mona Hotel (Limited). Queen's Bench Division, 1 February, 1892. Before Mr. Justice Day and a Common Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 123. Commission recoverable when a purchaser has been introduced, and has 'entered into a binding contract Implied assent by sJiareholders of a company Custom. This was a clam for 650 as commission on the sale of the Mona Hotel, Covent-garden. The commission note, dated theOth January 1891, on which theplaintiff sued, wasin the following terms : " Re Mona Hotel (Limited). We, the directors of the above company, are willing to sell for the sum of 15, 000 the goodwill, the lease, licence and furniture, fixtures, &c., and stock at valuation of the above hotel, and we agree to allow you a commission of 5 per cent, or on any amount which we might agree to take from any purchaser you introduce. Such sale is subject to the approval of the shareholders." This note was signed by three directors of the company. The plaintiff found a Mr. Page, who entered into a contract to purchase the hotel at the price of 13,000, and paid a deposit of 1,000. The plaintiff's claim was for commission on the 18,000 at the agreed rate. The sale was not carried out, Mr. Page re- fusing to complete. The defence to the claim was thai the sale never received the approval of the shareholders, and that by the custom of the trade no commission was payable until the completion of the purchase and receipt of the purchase money. It was contended for the plaintiff that he was entitled to recover, since he had introduced a purchaser who had been accepted by the defendants, and had entered into a binding Contract. It was admitted that the shareholders of the company had not given any express assent to the sale, but counsel relied on the fact that the company had received and kept the 1,000, and had brought an action against Page for specific performance of the contract. For the defendants it was argued that there had been no assent within the meaning of the contract, no meeting of the shareholders having been held. Evidence as to the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 267 existence of the above-mentioned custom was called, but failed to establish it. Mr. Justice Day having summed up the facts to the jury a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and judgment was given accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff : Mr. Blake Odgers ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Ashton Cross. Nightingale, Phillips and Page v. Huckle. Kingston-on-Thames County Court, 8 January, 1892. Before his Honour Judge Lushington and a Jury. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 145. Commission recoverable where party is found ready and 'Willing to buy. In this case the plaintiffs, auctioneers and estate agents, of Kingston, sought to recover from the defendant 19 15s., commission for having introduced to him a pur- chaser of a piece of land. The plaintiffs' case was that in the autumn defendant purchased the land in question from a Mr. Thatcher for 600. . Subsequently defendant called and stated that he wanted to re- sell i>, but that considering the expense of the conveyance and the firm's commission for a re-sale, he would not part with it for less than 650. A Mr. Pharo being willing to purchase for 650 they wrote to defen- dant stating that they had secured a buyer, and asking for a draft contract. Defendant then apparently repented of his bargain, and told Mr. Phillips there must have been some mistake, as he wanted 690 for the land. The firm informed Mr. Pharo accordingly, and heard no more of the matter until they found that Pharo had become possessed of the identical property that had been on their books. Although the money did not pass through their hands, they claimed commission, inasmuch as they found a person who was willing to buy for the 650 which was at first asked for it. The defendant denied having ever instructed the firm to sell the land, or that he even had the interview with them which it was alleged took place, but the plaintiffs' books 268 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. showed an entry of their instructions which was made at the time. Hie Honour, in summing up, pointed out there could be no doubt that the plaintiffs found the purchaser for the land, the point for the jury to decide being whether they were authorised by defendant to do so. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered accordingly. Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr. C. J. Carver ; counsel for the defendant : Mr. Scarlett. White, Druce and Brown v. Perry. Westminster County Court, 25 February, 1892. BeSore his Honour Deputy-Judge Scott. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 194. No binding agreement between tlie parties Non-smt. The plaintiffs sought to recover commission for pro- curing a tenant for the defendant's premises, No. 28, Sackville Street. It appeared that in April, 1891, the defendant instructed the plaintiffs to fin'l a tenant for the premises. The result was that in the following December the plaintiffs were successful in procuring a suitable tenant, and several interviews took place, with the result that the proposed tenant expressed his perfect willingness to take the premises. When the matter was on the eve of completion the defendant said that before it was finally sett-led she must consult a Mr. Hart, who was already in possession of a portion of the premises, as it would be necessary for him to give up possession. The result of the consultation was that Mr. Hart, instead of giving up that portion of the premises already held by him, agreed to become the tenant of the whole, and consequently the client who was intro- duced by the plaintiffs was rejected. The plaintiffs considered they had performed their part of the contract, and had properly earned their commission, and an account was in due course delivered. The defendant repudiated the claim on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to commission until an absolute bargain was brought about. COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 2G9 The plaintiffs' managing clerk was called, and gave evi- dence as to the instructions received from the defendant as to letting, and Mr. France said he was the person who was introduced to the premises by the plaintiffs, and he was anxious to take them, but the defendant would not complete vmtil she had consulted Hart, and the result was that Hart took the premises himself. The learned deputy -judge said that the plaintiffs had failed to show any binding agreement between the pai'ties, and in the absence of any such agreement there was no evidence to make the defendant liable. There must there- fore be a non-suit, with costs. The case was tried a second time before his Honour Judge Bayley, and judgment was again given in favour of the defendant. Beningfield v. Lady Brooke. Queen's Bench Division, March, 1892. Before Mr. Justice Day. Beported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 219. Tenants not obtained by agents suing. Lady Brooke, sued as Frances Evelyn Brooke, the wile of Francis Richard Guy Neville, commonly known as Lord Brooke, was sued in respect of her separate estate by Messrs. Beningfield and Son, land agents and valuers, who were employed to obtain tenants for Lady Brooke for her farms on her Dunmow estate, in Essex. They were to be paid the usual commission for any person they should introduce as tenants. Three farmers were alleged by the plaintiffs to have taken farms on their introduction, and they made valuations, for which, together with the commission, they claimed two sums of 15 8s. and 16 10s. Besides this the plaintiffs claimed 50 damages for breach of contract, as the defendant did not employ the plaintiffs to make a valuation in respect of other farms. The defence was that the tenants of the farms in ques- tion dealt directly with Mr. Webb, Lady Brooke's agent, and not with the plaintiffs, and that they were not en- titled to any commission, and his lordship being of opinion that the plaintiffs had not made out their claim, gave judgment for the defendant. . 270 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Giddy and Giddy v. Ross. Queen's Bench Division, 4 March, 1892. Before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a Common Juiy. Reported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 245. Commission alleged to be due on letting and on subsequent sale Clause in agent 1 s form Identification of property. In this action the plaintiffs sued Lady Ross to recover 187 commission upon the sale of a property belonging to her called Oak Cottage, Windsor, which sale they alleged was effected through their introduction. The defendant denied her liability, alleging that the property in question was sold through the agency of Mr. Perks, of Dover-street, to whom she had paid full commission, and not through the plaintiffs. For the plaintiffs it was said that in December, 1888, the defendant had been anxious to let a property of hers at Windsor, called Oak Cottage, and had placed that pro- perty in the plaintiffs' hands with the object of letting it if they could, or selling it. It appeared that the plaintiffs sent the defendant one of their forms on which to fill up the particulars of the property which Lady Boss instructed her sister, Miss Barnes, to do. This form was filled up by Miss Barnes on the 19th December, 1888, and was returned to the plaintiffs signed ' Lady Ross." It contained the plaintiffs' terms of commission, with the following clause at the end thereof: "Note. Should a tenant eventually purchase, the commission on sale will be charged, less the amount previously received on the letting." Shortly after, the plaintiffs advertised this property as to let, and in January, 1890, introduced a Mrs. Hamilton, who entered into negotiations for taking it on lease. These negotiations culminated in an agreement dated the 24th April, 1890, by which Mrs, Hamilton agreed to take Oak Cottage, to- gether with about two acres of the land, on a lease ot seven, 14 and 21 years at a yearly rent ot 330, Lady Ross undertaking to build stables at a maximum cost of 900, upon the cost of which Mrs. Hamilton agreed to pay as soon as finished an increased rental of 6 per cent, on their cost. Towards the end of the negotiations with the COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 271 plaintiffs a question arose as to the exact boundary of the portion to be let to Mrs. Hamilton, and Lady Boss being at the time in Scotland referred the plaintiffs to Mr. Perks, stating he had some plans of the property and the proposed boundary. Mrs. Hamilton's agents, Messrs. Waller and Co., were in consequence referred to Mr. Perks, with the result that on the 1st July, 1890, Mrs. Hamilton (who had then become Mrs. Grenfell) purchased the whole of the property, nearly four acres, for 9,000. Messrs. Giddy and Giddy, on hearing of the sale, claimed that they were, under the terms of their original agreement with Lady Ross, entitled to their full commission upon the sale. Lady Boss, on the other hand, while admitting that she was liable to pay the commission on the letting, alleged that she was in no way bound to pay the plaintiffs any commission on the sale of the property as a whole to Mrs. Grenfell on the 1st July, 1890. She said that she never gave any instruc- tions whatever to the plaintiffs authorising them \00. Some lengthy correspondence then took place upon the subject of commission, but as the defendants persisted in their re- fusal to pay, this action was brought. Mr. Charles Wall, clerk to the plaintiffs, said that he had gone to the house in question. He saw Mr. Dawe and asked him for revised terms as to some houses, and was given particulars of two. The houses were then in course of erection, and no numbers were given. In May of the same year Mrs. Hanson called at the office and had an interview, and received particulars of the houses. Mr. W. R. Walters said he was manager to the plaintiffs, and on one occasion he 'iad an interview with Mrs. Banson, when he handed her a card to view the house in Evelyn Gardens. In cross-examination he stated that there were some special cases in which a reduced charge of commission was made, but it would only be in cases where the client was poor, and not because he happened to be a builder. For the defence Mr. W. A. Dawe said Mr. Banson called on him personally and the transaction of the sale was conducted entirely between themselves, and Mr. Banson himself gave evidence as to the manner in which he was first brought into contact with the vendor of this particular house, which was in no way brought about by the intervention of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Giddy and Giddy. T2 276 COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. Other witnesses were called, and after hearing the case at considerable length the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, for whom judgment was entered accordingly, with costs. Subsequently, however, a new trial was granted and judgment was given for the defendants, with costs. Counsel for the plaintiffs : Mr. Bonner ; counsel for the defendants : Mr. Spokes. Pierce v. Aldridge. Croydon County Court, 10 May, 1892. Before his Honour Judge Lushington. Eeported ESTATES GAZETTE, Vol. xxxix., p. 493. Auctioneer's claim to commission ivlierc propei ty put in his hands, but sold by the vendor before the auction Custom must be strictly proved. This was an action to recover the balance of a sum of 10, alleged to have been received by the defendant, an auctioneer, of Upper Norwood, on behalf of the plain tiff r who was trustee of the estate of a Mrs. Drew. Mr. Aldridge, it appeared, had received instructions from Mr. Pierce, acting as trustee to the estate of Mrs. Drew, to sell certain property in or about Upper Norwood, Eventually they sold some ground rents to Mrs. Brand, who paid the deposit of 70. Subsequently the defendant said the only way of satisfactorily disposing of the estate was by public auction, and eventually he was instructed to put it up for sale. He had given plaintiff credit for 70. The only matter in dispute was whether defendant was entitled to 27 10s. commission on the sale of property to Mr. Smith, and 2 Os. 6d. for extra expenses. The custom referred to was that when a property was put into the hands of an auctioneer to sell by auction, and adver- tised by him, if the property was then sold by the vendor before the auction, the auctioneer was nevertheless entitled to his commission. The contention on the other side was, first, that the property was sold through a firm of auctioneers, Messrs. Westmore and Young, who were given the property for sale in June, 1891 ; secondly, that there COMPENDIUM OF COMMISSION CASES. 277 was no such custom as that stated ; and, thirdly, that de- fendant had been paid 19 10s. for putting the property up to auction, Mr. Aldridge said uhat he had received instructions con- cerning this property from the clerk to the firm, and later from Mr. Pierce himself. He advertised it, and subsequently he called on Mr. Smith, and advised him to purchase. He told him he was going to submit it to auction, and gave him the date. The custom was that if a person went to an auctioneer to sell property by auction that firm was entitled to receive a commission if the property was sold by the vendor, or by his instructions, between the date of the appearance of the advertisement and the announced auction. On this ground he claimed 27 10s., his usual percentage viz., 5 per cenc. on the first hundred and 2 per cent, on the remainder. The 2 Os. 6f ri-iiiniieratt'tlfor hi* trouble on each. Litho, 2s. each. REPORT PAPER For Valuations (hand made), 14s. per ream, or lOd. per quire RYDE'S SCALE OF FEES ALLOWED IN COMPENSATION CASES (on cardboard and paper) , 3d. each. SALE BOOKS Size Tin. by 5in., strongly bound in boards with leather backs 200 pages ruled, cash columns or as specimen on page 13, No. 8. Price, with cash, 8s. per doz. ; ruled and printed, 12s. per doz. SALE SHEETS Loose, ruled, 9d. per quire, 12s. per ream, or ruled to pattern SALE BOOKS for Furniture Sales (ruled) in stiff covers, with label, 12 leaf, 3s. per doz. ; 20 leaf, 4s. per doz. See specimen on page 13, No. 7. SALE BOOKS Different pattern, 20 leaf, 21s. per gross ; 40 leaf, 30s. per gross ; also made up in books of 150 leaves. SALE LEDGERS Cream wove interleaved blotting, with cover and label : Octavo, 1 day's sale, 3 letters, 6d. each, 3s. 6d. per dozen. 7d. 5s. Od. tt m , 3 - ,, * > 3 6d. 5s. Od. 2 2 9d. 7s. 6d. 3 1 Is. 10s. Od. Extra leaf (unlettered), front and back, Is. per dozen extra on all sizes. Postage extra. SPECIFICATION PAPER lOd. per quire, 14s. per ream. SURVEYING BOOKS Ruled and bound leather backs, 64 pages, Is. each (by post Is. Id.), 10s. per dozen, size 8in. by 5iu. THE LONDON INSTITUTE OF ESTATE AGENTS' TERMS OF COMMIS- SION 6d. per dozen. TIMBER BOOKS (revised), used by leading firms, with Timber Tables on cover, on good hand-made paper, 2s. each, 22s. per dozen (size Sin. by 3 Jin.). TIMBER TABLES 3d. each. TIMBER VALUING BOOKS Is. 6d. each, 16s. per dozen (size Sin. by 5in.). TRACING CLOTHS AND PAPERS Various qualities. Prices on application. MANILLA TABS. Prices from 4s. 6d. to lls. 6d. per 1,000 ; with name and address 2s. per 1,000 extra. (4) ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, K.C. AGREEMENT FORMS. (Foolscap, 3s. per quire.) Agreement for a Lease. Building Agreement. Public House Transfer. To Let a Shop (term in blank). ,, ,, for three years. ,, Small Tenements. ,, a House (terra in blank) three kinds, A. B. C. To Let a House for one year. ,, for three years. .,, Furnished House or Apart- ments. ,, Offices or Warehouse. Sale of Freeholds. ,, gopyholds. Leaseholds. Cottage (Demy 3d. each, or 5s. per quire.} To Let a Farm, with Schedule. NOTICES TO QUIT. (Is. 6d. per quire.) Apartments Landlord to Tenant. ,, Tenant to Landlord. House and Premises. Landlord to Tenant. ,, ,, Tenant to Landlord. Notice under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883. VARIOUS NOTICES, &c. (Is. 6d. per quire.) Appraisement Forms. Mortgage Loan Forms. Notice to Pay Rent to Mortgagee. Attorney of Mortgagee. ,, requiring Payment of Mortgage, and of Sale in Default. ef Intention to Pay Off Mortgage. ,, Apply for Ejectment Order. Complaint before Justices for Recovery of Possession after due determi- nation of Tenant. Request for Appraisement. The ditto Declaration by Lodger. DISTRESS FORMS. (Is. 6d. per quire.) Single Warrants. Requests to Remove Goods. Notice of Distress with Inventory. Distress Warrant.Notice and Inventory Distress Warrant, Notice and Inven- tory, under the Agricultural Hold- Requests to Hold over Distress. ,, Sell Distrained Goods. Notice by Landlord to Sheriff of Rent Due. ings Act, 1883. HEADED PAPERS. Litho, ruled red lines with feint. Foolscap, 3s. per quire. Demy, 4s. per quire. Memorandum of Agreement. Valuation. Inventory. Report, Survey and Valuation. (5) Valuation Forms for. Probate. Inventory and Valuation. ONLY address "Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, B.C. CATTLE NUMBERS. o These have been greatly revised and improved and Prices reduced, and will, we trust, be found fully up to the requirements of the day. Q PLAIN CATTLE NUMBERS Without Name and Address, as specimens below. Plain Black Cattle Lot Numbers (perforated only), 25 numbers on a sheet. Id. a sheet or Is. 6d. a quire. If gummed and perforated, 2d. a sheet, or 2s. 6d. a quire. Postage 2d. a quire extra. They extend from 1 to 500 ; from 501 to 1,000, 2d. per sheet, perforated only ; if on millboard, 5 numbers on a sheet, Is. 6d. per 100 numbers up to 500 ; 2s. 6d. per 100 beyond 500 to 1,000. Oblong Cattle Lot Numbers, perforated, printed in BLACK, 25 numbers on a sheet, 2d a sheet, or 2s. 6d. a quire. Postage 3d. a quire extra. These extend from 1 to 200. Ditto with space for number left blank, IJd. per sheet, or 2s. per quire. (6) ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, E.G. Oval Cattle Lot Numbers, perforated and printed in BLUE, 25 numbers on a sheet, 2d. a sheet, or 2s. 6d. a quire. Postage 3d. a quirej extra. If gummed, 3d. per sheet, or 4s. per quire. These extend from 1 to 500. Mounted on millboard, with eyelet, 5s. per 100 numbers. j ,.. : Ditto with space for number left blank, IJd. per sheet, or 2s. per quire. PLAIN CATTLE NUMBERS. Bold Figures in RED INK, cut circular, punched out and put up in packets, Price 2s. 6d. per dozen sets of 25 numbers in a set. These extend from 1 to 100. SMALLER NUMBERS FOR IMPLEMENTS, &c. Lot 688 Numbers about three-quarters of an inch high, perforated, 50 numbers on a sheet, Id. a sheet, or Is. 6d. a quire. If gummed, 2d. per sheet or 2s. 6d. per quire. Postage 2d. a quire extra. Mounted on millboard, lOd. per 100 numbers, 10 on a sheet. These extend from 1 to 999. The same figure without the word " Lot," perforated, 100 numbers on a sheet, Id. a sheet or Is. 6d. per quire. (7) ONLY address "Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, E.G. PRINTED AUCTIONEER'S NAME AND ADDRESS, as below: M Sea & . 11 8 1 _ g "S g T. WALKER & SONS AUCTIONEERS. YORK. Black Figures with Name and Address in Ked, punched out and put up in packets. Prices, same as above. 8) ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, B.C. RED FIGURES Printed Name and Address in black or blue, punched out and put up in packets. Prices same as on page 8. OVAL Printed in all black or red, on linen backed paper, 25 sets, 1 to 50 or 50 sets, 1 to 25, price 15s. Ditto, on cardboard and eyeletted, price 3s. per 100. (9) ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, E.G. FURNITURE LOT NUMBERS. Lot 173 Furniture Lot Numbers, perforated and gummed, as per specimen above, are sold in books containing 24 sheets of numbers, 100 numbers on a sheet, price Is. 8d. each book (by post 9d. extra). Book 1 contains 24 sets of numbers, from 1 to 100 ; Book 2 101 to 200 ; Book 3 ,, ,, ,. 201 to 300 ; And so on up tol.OOO. Also in Books similar to above, 24 sheets of 50 numbers on a sheet, price lOd. ach. These extend from 1 to 1,000. Loose Single Sheets, of 100 numbers on a sheet, similar to the above, are also kept in stock. Price 2d. per sheet, or 3s. per quire. These extend from 1 to 1,000. Above 1,000 the price is ld. a sheet of 50 numbers, or 2s. per quire. 51 Lot Numbers, without the word " Lot," as above, gummed and perforated, in books of 50 numbers on a sheet, 24 sheets to a book, price 6d. each. These extend from 1 to 1,000. They can also be had loose in sheets, at Id. per sheet. Blank Numbers, gummed and perforated, with the word " Lot " only, a blank being left for the number, are kept in books of 24 sheets. 100 numbers on a sheet, price lOd. each. Plain Numbers Without gum or perforation. Books containing plain Lot Numbers for Furniture are kept, 48 pages in each book, price Is. Book 1 contains Lots 1 to 50 ; book 2, 51 to 100 ; book 3, 101 to 150 ; and so on up to Lot 600. Postage extra. Lot 156 Larger Size Furniture Lot Numbers. Sold in sheets of 100, 3d. per sheet or 3s. 6d. per quire. These extend from 1 to 1,000. Ditto, without the word " Lot," in books of 50 numbers on a sheet, 24 sheet? to the book, price 9d. per book. These are also kept in single sheets, price l$d. each. Lot 233 Lot 123 Lot 739 es of ] is. a qui (10) Small numbers, intended for sales of plate or other small articles ; 100 numbers on a sheet, ld. a sheet or 2s. a quire. These extend from 1 to 1,000. ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St, Bride Street, E.C, HAMMERS. SILVER-MOUNTED AUCTIONEERS' HAMMER & SLIDING PENCIL Spring top. Plain. Silver Mounted Ivory Hammer (as per specimen above) - 9/6 8/6 Ditto smaller size 8/6 7/6 Ivory (large) - 8/6, 10/6 and 12/6 each. Wood Hammers 2/0 each. Ebony 2/6 each. -/9 per 100 (short). 1/0 per 100 (long). ought at S. iLE L89 OT. i s. d. < -^sri> Iflitgftt at SALI Mr. AUCTIONEER 189 LOT. S. d. o ( B a o O I-I ^j CS OQ "S p- . *n ft S S ^* S " S r ^3 D 1 W | o 4 s a>-" . CQ .2 S 3 3 5 - u r-i PQ 2 */ 2 ft CQ co| h . ^ i C) H ^ 111 pa d -S^O H .2 3 o Q 5 5 d H 1 g 1 _tn o b Q (U ^ i fl O . M ja CO og| i. Jl 1 r d V 02 CO" <) co a ** pts H bo W g S3 ^ rj *W) "? P-i & * rl P.* ^5 O3 a) CQ Q i 0) DQ & O 0) "Sea ^ g ^ i ! ce. g ri * 2 a a 1 o"o sg 1 S a y $ "3 ^1 1 g | '^ P. H* S A o . s ^ ^ o $ !i rj ! r^ d pq R a 02 3 O H X en ^ ^ Co fc rj s CO *-" 02 2 O * I S CD 0) f== 03 2 HH G M o H CM o 'S I ti 1 e:3 a tH - O Pi 02 ^ 1 S 00 ^ grf s oK a x, o wa^J S fl ^ ^ Hig iii w g 1 H o o o o H 02 02 S C3 5 q P ^ .3 3 ri a 6 fc "o hi 6 m ^ % ONLYaddress, " Estates Gazette," 6, St, Bride Street, E.C. Printing & Lithography. AUCTIONEEHS' PARTICULARS Catalogues of Sale, Posters, ALSO CIRCULARS, INVOICES, MEMO. FORMS AND Every Description of Printing Executed WITH PROMPTITUDE AND AT MODERATE PRICES. AT THE "ESTATES GAZETTE . OFFICE, 6, ST, BRIDE STREET Fleet Street, London, E.G. Lithographed Drawings of every description, Maps and Plant* of Estates, Architectural Drawings and Landscapes, drawn by first-rate Artists with the utmost expedition. SIEHSTID IFOIR, PRINTING WORKS: 16, 17 & 18, HARP ALLEY, ST, BRIDE STREET, E.G. (21) Books published at theESTATES GAZETTE Office For Cash with Order any Volume ivill be forwarded post free. Second Edition. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. AUCTION LAW, A Handbook of. An invaluable work of reference for Auctioneers. Revised and brought up to date. By W. ARCHBUTT POCOCK, of the Middle Tetnole. Barrister-n.t-i.aw. Fourth Edition. Demy Svo. Price 5s. net. THE AUCTIONEERS' MANUAL. A complete Guide to the Law and Practice of Auctioned s. Con tains Scales of Professional Charges. Forms of Agreement, Specimen Title Pages, Conditions of Sale and Catalogues. Methods of Keepine Accounts of Sales. Ac.. &P. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. DILAPIDATIONS, Tne Law and Practice of. A valuable Guide and Handbook to this difficult subject. By A. T. MACER, P.A.S.I., The legal matter revised by SIDNEY WEIGHT, M. A.., of the Middle Temple, Barriater-at-Law. Crown Svo. Price 3s. 6d. net. COMMISSION CASES, A Compendium of. Contains a collection of all important cases as to Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Com- mission. By G. ST. LEQER DAKIEL, LL.B. (Lond), of the Middle Temple. Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8110. Price 5*. n?t. THE LAND AND HOUSE PROPERTY YEAR BOOK. Published annually. A Guide to Investment in Real Estate, showing ata glance the Results of Sales at the London Auction Mart, as well as in the Suburbs pnd tVip Principal Provincial Centres. Crown Svo. Price 5it.net. THE LAW OF FIXTURES, with Appendix of Statutes, Leading Cases, &c. By SIDNEY WRIGHT, M.A., (of the Middle Temple, Barrister-n t-Law ). New Edition. Crown Svo. Price 3s. 6d. net. LAW OF DISTRESS. A comprehensive Guide, containing the text of the Law of Distress Amendment Act and the New Rules thereunder ; carefully revised, with References and Cases brought up to date. By G. ST. LEGER DANIELS, LL.B. (Loud.), of the Middle Temple. Barriater-at-Law. ~B\I the same Author. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. LEASES, Principles and Points. A Handbook to the Law of Leases ; for Landlords. Tenants, and House Agents. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. METROPOLITAN SANITATION, with Appendix. Containing the Public Health Act, 1891 ; the Bye-Laws issued by L.C.C. and local authorities ; also the various Sanitary Regulations in force through- out the Metropolis. By W. HFRBERT DAW, F.S.I. Just P/tblished. Crown Svo., 600 pp. Net 10s. 6d. RATING. This work, which is written from a Surveyor's standpoint, gives under three heads Principles, Practice and Procedure a clear and comprehensive survey of all the matters appertaining to this difficult subject. In addition to the pages devoted to the rating of land and buildings, exhaustive chapters are devoted to the complex points arising out of the rating of Railways, Canals, Tramwa.vs, Gas and Water Companies, Docks, Harbours and Piera. By MICHAEL FARA.DAY (Rating Surveyor), the Legal matter revised by STANLEY A. LATHAM, LL.B., of the Parliamentary Bar. A.I.C.A.. F.B.S.S. FRANK P. WILSON, 6, St. Bride Street, London, E.G. ONLY address " Estates Gazette," 6, St. Bride Street, E.G. Crown 8vo. Price 5s. Net. SZEOOUSTID lEIDITXOUST. A HANDBOOK OF AUCTION LAW BY WILLIAM ARCHBUTT POCOCK, Esq. (Of the Mi/< thr subject, biiity irritteit from <> Surri'inirx' ;K TI1K STIIVKYoKs' INSTITTTK IN. This is a concise Manual of the Law of Fixtures, with references to all the principal Statutes, Cases, &c., brought up to date, and containing the subjects of and questions set in the Examination of the Surveyors' Institution. It will prove very useful to Landlords, Tenants, Solicitors. Surveyors, House Agents and Students. The "Estates thtzette," 6, St. llride Street, Ln-ili-i/, /><>xt free. YEAH BOOK, SHOWING AT A GLANCE THE KESULTS OF SALES THE YEAK. This book will prove invaluable to Investors and Speculator.- in Land or House Property, It gives in alphabetical order all t have been effected at the London Auction Mart, during the year. example, if an investor desires property at Barnsbury, he has only to turn to that district to ascertain how property sold, and whether it was Freehold, Leasehold, or Copyhold, and the nature of the rent. Im are thus put into possession of important facts as to the value of pro, at auction in any district in London or the suburbs, as well as the country. The volume, which is of a handy size, is alphabetically arm particulars of the properties briefly described, the date of sale, and price realised indicated. The results of Sales in the suburbs and povincial centres are also given. To Professional Men and Investors it is an indispensable vade mccum for the Auction Mart. Copies of the edition for 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895 can still be obtained. Books pnblished at the_EST_^ For Cash with Order any Volume vnu Second Edition. Crou-nSvo. Price5s.net. AUCTION LAW, A Handbook of. An invaluable work of reference for Auctioneers. Revised and brought up to date. By W. ARCHBUTT PococK.of the Middlejremple, Barrister-at-Law. Font tit Edition. Demy Svo. Pricc5s.net. THE AUCTIONEERS' MANUAL. A complete Guide to the Law and Practice of Auctioneers. Con tains Scales of Professional Charges. Forms of Agreement, Specimen Title Pages, Conditions of Sale and Catalogues. Methods of Keeping Accounts of Sales. *e... &c. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. DILAPIDATIONS, Tne Law and Practice of. A valuable Guide and Handbook to this difficult subject. By A. T. MACER, P.A.S.I., The legal matter revised by SIDNEY WRIGHT, M. A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Crown Svo. Price3s.6d.net. COMMISSION CASES, A Compendium of. Contains a collection of all important eases as to Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Com- mission. By G. ST. LEGER DANIELS, LL.B. (Lond), of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Crown Svo. Price 5s. net. THE LAND AND HOUSE PROPERTY YEAR BOOK. Published annually. A Guide to Investment in Real Estate, showing at a glance the Results of Sales at the London Auction Mart, as well as in the Suburbs and the Principal Provincial Centres. Crown Svo. Price 5s.net. THE LAW OF FIXTURES, with Appendix of Statutes, Leading Cases, &c. By SIDNEY WRIGHT, M.A., (of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law). New Edition. Crown Svo. Price 3s. 6d. net. LAW OF DISTRESS. A comprehensive Guide, containing the text of the Law of Distress Amendment Act and the New Rules thereunder ; carefully revised, with References and Cases brought up to date. By G. ST. LEGER DANIELS, LL.B. (Loud.), of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. BIJ the game Author. Crown Svo. Price5s.net. LEASES, Principles and Points. A Handbook to the Law of Leases ; for Landlords. Tenants, and House Agents. Crown Sen. Price 5s. net. METROPOLITAN SANITATION, with Appendix. Containing the Public Qealth Act, 1891 ; the Bye-Laws issued by L.C.C. and local authorities ; also the various Sanitary Regula'ions in force through- Jttst Piiblixhed. Crown Svo., 600 ip. Net 10s. 6d. RATING. This work, which is written from a Surveyor's standpoint, givea under three heads Principles, Practice and Procedure a clear and comprehensive survey of all the matters appertaining to this difficult subject. In addition to the pages devoted to the rating of land and buildings, exhaustive chapters are devoted to the complex points arising out of the rating of Railways, Canals, Tramways, Gas ani Water Companies, Docks, Harbours and Piers. By MICHAEL FARADAY (Rating Surveyor), the Legal matter revised by STANLEY A. LATHAM, LL.B., of the Parliamentary Bar, A.I.C.A.. F.R.8.S. FRANK P. WILSON, 6, St. Bride Street, London, E.G.