( 127 )
Pb'.RRTR el al. v. WEERASOORIA.
D. C., Guile, 3,161.
Bailment—Right of bailor to sue bailee though not solely entitled to pro-.
A entrusted to defendant certain clothes and jewellery for safekeeping. The property belonged to the estate of A’s late wife,who had left two minor children as her heirs. A and the minorchildren joined in an action to recover the property fromdefendant—
i eld, mat although the minor children had an interest in theproperty, they were improperly joined as plaintiffs. The contractbetween A :-nd defendant-was an ordinary contract of bailment,and A alone could maintain an action against the defendant forthe recovery of the property. Defendant could not in such actiondeny A’s title.
r H hi facts of the case appear in the judgments.
Domhorst, for appellant.
•Cur. adv. twit.
17th July, 1896. La'wbee, J.—
This is an action by a man for the recovery of his late wife’sclothes and jewellery, which the plaintiff says he entrusted to thedefendant for safe keeping. It, was quite unnecessary to makethe plaintiff’s minor children co-plaintiffs. Their Dames shouldbe struck out (section 18 of the Code). The property may betheirs in whole or in part, but'the action is laid on a contract of
v 128 )
1896. bailment between the plaintiff and the defendant on an expresaJuly 17. obligation by the defendant that he would return the box WhenLawbib j °&Hed on. The bailor has a title to sue, and the bailee is notpermitted to deny his title (14 of 1895, section 117).
I do not appreciate the error or defect which the District Judgediscovered in the plaint.
The plaintiff, as guardian ad litem, has not taken out a certificateof curatorship, but that is not necessary (see Uduma Lebbe v.Seyadu Ali, D. G., Kurunegala, 857, 1 N. L. R. 1).
The appellant to have his costs of appeal.
This judgment is clearly wrong, and .must be set aside. Theaction purports to be by one Mayonis Peeris and by Nancy EllenPeeris and Silian Thracia Peeris, as minors represented by him(first plaintiff) as their next friend.
The object of the action is to recover from defendant certainpersonal property which the plaintiff and his children are said tobe entitled.
According to the plaint, plaintiff entrusted defendant with thoproperty specified in the plaint for safe keeping. When he askedthe defendant to restore the property to him, the defendantrefused to do so, and she keeps the articles. That in itself disclosesa very good cause of action by the plaintiff against the defend-ant of detaining property entrusted by him to defendant.
I do not quite see why the minors were joined, because they wereno parties to the contract of deposit by plaintiff to the defendant.
Two reasons given by the District Judge in support of his judg-ment are—one, that the minors are not properly represented in thisplaint, but he admits that that defect is easily cured by amend-ment. The defect is not quite clear to me.
The other reason is, that.before tbe plaintiff sued to recoverwhat is said to form part of the estate of his late wife he shouldhave taken out a certificate under section 481 of the CivilProcedure Code. But this iB not an action to recover part of anestate. This is an action to recover property given by one personto another on the understanding that the property should berestored when demanded. It is an ordinary contract of bailment.
The Judgment is set aside, and the case sent back to the DistrictCourt to be heard oh the merits.
It is manifest that the minor children have been imprdperlyjoined in this action. Their names should be struck out undersection 18 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Appellant to have his costs of appeal.
PEERIS et al. v. WEERASOORIA