103-NLR-NLR-V-05-SIRAJUDIN-v.-WALKER.pdf
( 371 )
STRAJUDIN v. WALKER.
D. C., Kandy, 13,737.
Principal and agent—Liability of proprietor of an estate for debts incurred bysuperintendent for its maintenance.
Where a proprietor of an estate did not advance moneys to hissuperintendent, butallowed himto sell the cropsfromtime to timeand
apply the proceedstowards itsmaintenance, andthesuperintendentwas
obliged to ■ purchasegoods andborrow money inorder to carry onthe
cultivation of the estate and keep the coolies employed there supplied withprovisions,—
Held, that the – proprietor was liable for the debt incurred by the■superintendent.
T
HIS was an action brought against the proprietor of GrottoEstate to recover the sum of Rs. 450, being the value of
rice sold and delivered and money lent to his superintendentduring July and August, 1899. Defendant denied his liability onthe allegation that his superintendent had no authority, expressor implied, to purchase goods or borrow money, on defendant’scredit, and that the plaintiffgave credit tothesuperintendent,
and not to the defendant.
The District Judge found that the defendant did not advancemoneys to his superintendent, but that the latter sold the crops
1902.
February 11,
( 372 >
1902. and applied the proceeds towards the upkeep and cultivation ofFebruary ll. the estate, and that when the expenditure exceeded the income,B0N8FR. C.J, the defendant msfde good the balance against him to thesuperintendent.
It was not disputed that the defendant’s estate got the benefit ofthe cash and the rice supplied by the plaintiff.
In these circumstances, the District Judge held that, the superin- 'tendent had the authority to pledge the defendant’s credit, andgave judgment for plaintiff as claimed.
Defendant appealed.
Van Langenberg, for appellant.—In the case of Sinniah Chetty v.John Quy (4 8. 0. C. 40} it was held that a superintendent, as such,had no power to buy goods and borrow money upon the credit ofhis absent employer. The plaintiff- here has proved that he .wasin the Island in July and August, 1899, and had not given thesuperintendent any -authority to purchase goods or borrow moneyfor the estate. His superintendent had not rendered himaccounts for July and August, and he knew – nothing of thetransactions alleged by the plaintiff till September, 1899. Thesuperintendent was dead, and the plaintiff had given him credit,and not the defendant. As the plaintiff has elected to treat the-superin tendent as his debtor,. knowing that he was the agent ofthe defendant, it- was not open to the plaintiff to sue the principal.[Boxser, C.J.—The governing principle of the Roman-Dutch
J.aw in such cases is that one man should not benefit by another’sloss. Here the plaintiff furnished .rice and money at the requestof the superintendent, who had not the means to carry on hiswork or keep the coolies from starving. The District Judge hasfound that-the estate got the benefit of plaintiff’s resources. Howcould the defendant keep that benefit without -paying for it?]The plaintiff elected to treat- the agent as his debtor, and there-fore there is no action against the principal.
Sampayu, for plaintiff, respondent, was not called upon.
11th February, 1902. Bonser, C.J.—
This is an action brought by a Moorman, a boutique-keeper,against the owner of a tea estate in respect of rice and moneyssupplied to the superintendent of the estate for the purpose ofworking that estate. The District Judge has found that theplaintiff is entitled to this money, and the defendant has beenill-advised enough to appeal. I will read through three lines of
( mn )
the District Judge’s judgment, which will amply -justify my 1902.statement:—‘‘It is not disputed that the defendant’s estate got February It.“ the benefit of the rice and cash supplied by the plaintiff, and Bonser, C.J.‘‘ defendant does not suggest that he has in any manner already“ paid for them either to the plaintiff or to the superintendent.”
On what principle he can claim to. retain the benefit of this riceand money, without paying for it, I canuot understand. Theappellant’s counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court, reportedin’ 4 S. C. 6. 40, laying down the rule that the .superin-tendent was not entitled to pledge his employer’s credit forgoods and moneys supplied for the use of an' estate. But inthat case there was evidence to prove that there was no necessitywhatever for the superintendent to pledge his employer’s credit,-because the employer kept him constantly in funds amplysufficient for the maintenance of the estate. In this case thfirewas no such fact. On the contrary, the owner had not kept thesuperintendent supplied with money, but allowed him to apply anymoney which he might receive on the sale of the produce inmaintaining the estate; but it does not follow that that was-alwayssufficient to keep the superintendent in funds. Until thd producewas sold and money received, the coolies could not be allowed tostarve: rice must be supplied to them. It seems to me thatin this case the appellant has neither the law nor the merits on-hisside. The appeal must be dismissed.
Wendt, J.—I entirely agree.
♦