MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. KARUPAIYA KANKANI

MUTTAIYA CHETTY v. KARUPAIYA KANKANI.

D. C., Colombo, 14,404.

Principal and agent-Power of attorney-Appointment of two persons to act jointly-Authority of one agent to bind his principal by promissory: notes made by himself only-Personal introduction of agent by principal to creditor-Notice of existence of power of attorney-Duty of creditor.

Where a power of attorney appointed two persons to act jointly and to sign promissory notes, and the principal personally introduced one of his agents to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to supply him with money and cloth, and in the course of such introduction disclosed to the plaintiff that such agent had been appointed by a written instrument,-

Held, in an action brought by the plaintiff against the principal, (1) that under the power of attorney granted, one of the agents only could not bind the principal by promissory notes signed by himself alone; (2) that an authority to an agent to borrow money and purchase goods on behalf of his principal does not include an authority to sign promissory notes; and (3) that as the plaintiff took the agent's promissory notes, after he was affected with knowledge of the power of attorney, without ascertaining for himself whether or not the agent was given the power to make promissory notes on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue the defendant.

THIS was an action by the payee of four promissory notes against the defendant as the maker thereof.

The defendant denied that he made them. The notes appeared to have been signed as follows: " Vayi Karu Karupaiya Kankani, by his attorney Suppaiya." It was admitted that the notes were signed by Suppaiya; but it was contended that the power of attorney under which he purported to sign for the defendant was a joint one in favour of Suppaiya and Vellasamy, and that Suppaiya had no authority to act alone.

The power of attorney set forth that, as Karupaiya Kankani was about to leave the Island, he was desirous of appointing " some for and proper person as my attorney to manage and transact all my business and affairs in the said Island during my absence," and it ran on as follows: " I do hereby appoint V. E. K. R. Vellasamy and V. E. K. R. Suppaiya my true and lawful attorney and attorneys in Ceylon during my absence therefrom to act for me and on my behalf, &c ; to purchase for me any estates my said attorneys shall think fit and proper ; to invest the moneys belonging to me upon such security as my said attorneys shall consider good and sufficient ; to sign, &c, promissory notes, and generally to perform all such other acts which my said attorneys shall think necessary or proper to be done , it being my intent and desire that all matters and things respecting the same shall be under the full management, control, and direction of my said attorneys."

The Acting District Judge (Mr. N. E. Cooke) found as follows: -

" I do not think that the defendant would have questioned the authority of Suppaiya to make and endorse the notes, but for the fact that he afterwards found that Suppaiya had misappropriated moneys raised on the notes. It appears that when the defendant left for India he entrusted to Suppaiya and Vellasamy money and goods to the amount of about Rs. 30,000, and during his absence money and goods to the amount of about Rs. 30,000 came into their hands; that hearing that Suppaiya was raising moneys largely he returned to the Island, and on looking into Suppaiya's account found that Rs. 3,000 was not accounted for. He prosecuted Suppaiya for misappropriating that sum. Suppaiya was convicted, and he is now undergoing sentence.

" As the defendant then claimed to be entitled to all moneys" that came into Suppaiya's hands, he cannot now be allowed to repudiate the authority of Suppaiya to act alone for him.

" Judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 2,033, with interest, will be entered."

The defendant appealed.

Va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document