033-NLR-NLR-V-43-PERERA-v.-WICKREMARATNE.pdf
SOERTSZ J.—Perera v. Wickremaratne.
141-
1941Present: Soertsz J.
PERERA v. WICKREMARATNE.97—C. R. Kandy, 28,950.
Prescription—Acknowledgment of debt—Promise to pay—Ordinance No. 22 of1871 (Cap. 55). s. 12,
Where the defendant wrote to the plaintiff as follows : —
" I wish to sell it (a property) as early as possible and also to settleyour account ”,—
Held, that the writing constituted an acknowledgment of a debt fromwhich a promise to pay the debt could reasonably be inferred.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Kandy.
C. E. S. Perera (with him S. W. Jayasuriya), for the defendant,appellant.
G. P. J. Kurukulasuriya (with him S. P. C. Fernando), for the plaintiff,respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 8, 1941. Soertsz J.—
The sole question that arises on this appeal is whether the learnedCommissioner of Requests took a correct view of the document P Iwhen he held that it amounted to an acknowledgment of a debt whichhad become statute barred, and so gave the plaintiff, by virtue of section12 of the Prescription Ordinance, the right to recover that debt.
P 1 is in these terms so far as the relevant part of it is concerned:
“ Mr. D. R. de Silva wrote to me asking at what price I want to sellit as there is a man known to him who wants to buy it. There aresome more people who are willing to buy it. I-wish to sell it as early aspossible and also to settle your account. ”
43/13
142SOERTSZ J.—Perera v. Wickremaratne.
IV plaintiff has given evidence and has testified to the fact that"your account ” refers to a sum of money due to him as fees in two casesia which he acted for the defendant. That statement has not beenchallenged. The question, then, is whether the words “ I wish ….to settle your account ” constitute an acknowledgment of the defendant'sdebt to the plaintiff from which a promise to pay the debt can reasonablybe inferred. I can see only one answer to that question. In the contextthe words “ your account ” clearly mean the “ account ” given by theaddressee to the writer of what is due to him. In other words, his bill :“ I wish to settle ” is not merely an acknowledgment of that debt fromwhich a promise to pay can be inferred, but it is an acknowledgmentwith an express declaration of a desire to pay. It has frequently beenlaid down that when there is an acknowledgment of a debt without anywords to prevent the possibility of an implication of a promise to pay it,a promise to pay is inferred. Much more, then, must such a promise beinferred when the acknowledgment is coupled with an expression ofdesire to pay.
This case is clearly within the rule of the House of Lords case of Spencerv. Hemmerde
The trial Judge, therefore; came to a right conclusion and this appealraoa& be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed. 1
1 {1922) 2 A. G. 507.