( 300 )
RANGHAMY et al. v. BASTIAN VEDERALA.
C. B., Tangalla, 1,292.
Conveyance in another's name—Roman-Dutch Law—Mandate.
A bought a piece of land in his daughter’s name, but the convey-ance was delivered to A, and he was put in possession of the land,and he remained in such possession. In an action by the daughteragainst A—
Held, that under the Roman-Dutch Law, A became the ownerof the land, because he had no mandate from his daughter tonominate her as the purchaser..
^J'HE facts sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.
Allan Drieberg, for respondent.
9th January, 1897. Withers, J.—
It seems that wheu the first plaintiS in this case was a smallchild her father, the defendant, many years ago bought a piece ofland in her name, for which he paid a sum of Rs. 50. His reasonfor doing so, he says, was that he thought he was going to die, andhe wanted to provide for his daughter in case he should die. Hehad no intention of parting with the land during his lifetime.Now, the conveyance and the land was delivered to the father,and by the Roman-Durch Law (Foef, XVIII. tit. 1, 8) hebecame the owner of the land, because he had no mandate from.his daughter to nominate her as the purchaser. According to theweight of evidence the father has always retained the conveyancewith the land. This land may yet become the first plaintiff’s, butit cannot be said to belong to her now. The judgment is conse-quently wrong, and th6 plaintiff’s action must be dismissed withcosts.
Passage referred to.
Emere possunt quilibet non prohibiti, quisque prose, nemo proalio, nisi procurator sit. Alioquin neque sibi, neque ei, pro quosine mandato emit actionem acquirit; sed dominus fiet is, eui ex,his duobus rem venditor tradiderit. (Voet', XVIII. tit. 1, 8.)
RANGHAMY et al. v. BASTIAN VEDERALA