( 494 )
Present: Ennis J.
SIYATUHAMY v. FERNANDO.307—G. B. Regatta, 15,998.
Jurisdiction—Action forgoods sold and delivered—Actionmaybe
brought where money had to be paid—Rule of English law as to' place of payment.
An action on a contract for goods sold and delivered could bebrought in a place, inter alia, where. the money had to be paid, andin the absence of any stipulation in the contract in regard to it,the rule of the English law that a man should seek out his creditorand pay him would apply.'
facts appear from the judgment.
H. V. Perera, for plaintiff, appellant.—As the place of paymentwas not an express term of the contract, the question arises, Whereshould the plaintiff have been paid? There is no specific provisionrelating to the matter in the Sale of Goods Ordinance, No. 11 of 1896,but section 58 (2) provides for the application of the English law ina casus omissus. The rule of the English law is that a debtor shouldseek out and pay his creditor. Accordingly, the plaintiff shouldhave been paid at Rambukkana, where he resides and carries onbusiness. His cause of action, being the non-payment,, thereforearose at Rambukkana. Hence, the Court of Requests of Regaliahas jurisdiction.
Counsel cited Dias v. Constantine,1 Fernando v. ArunasalempiUai,2and Rainapala v. Marikar.3
J.S. Jayawardene (with him Qoonewardene), for defendant,respondent, commented op the authorities cited.
February 12, 1920. Ennis J.—
This was an appeal from a dismissal of the plaintiff’s action on theground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. Theaction was one for a balance of Rs. 151.10 due for goods sold anddelivered. It appears that the contract was made in Gampola,and that the plaintiff resided in Rambukkana, within the jurisdictionof the Court. The rule of law in cases of contract would be that theaction could be brought in a place, inter alia, where the money hadto be paid, and in the absence of. any stipulation in the contract inregard -to it, the rule of English law that a man should seek out hiscreditor and pay him would apply. The English law with regardto the sale of goods, so far as the Sale of Goods Ordinance, No. ll of
» (1918) 20 N. L. R. 338.» (1919) 6 C. W. S. 151.
(1919) 6 O. W. R. 247.
( 495 )
1896, made no specific provision, was applied by section 58 (2) ofthat Ordinance. The point at issue was decided in the case ofDias v. Constantine,l and has been followed since.
In the circumstances, I would hold that the Court had juris-diction, and, inasmuch as the Court dealt with the other issues inthe case and decided that if it had jurisdiction the plaintiff would beentitled to a decree for Bs. 72.60, I set aside the decree, and enterjudgment for the plaintiff for that sum, with costs. The plaintiffis entitled to the costs of the appeal.
SIYATUHAMY v. FERNANDO