Dickinson et Al v Manchester

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 June 1971
• Neutral Citation: KN 1971 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 11 of 1967
• Date: 25 June 1971

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 11 of 1967

Dickinson et al

and

Manchester

Appearances:

F. E. Kelsick for the plaintiffs

C. M. D. Byron for defendant

Debt. - Sum owing

Facts: The plaintiff claimed against the defendant in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the deceased the sum of $925.57 alleged to be owed to the estate of the deceased by the defendants for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. Whether the debt existed. Judgment given for the plaintiffs for the sum owed.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiffs' claim is against the defendant in her capacity as Executrix of the Estate of Louisa Ann Manchester, deceased, for the sum of $925.57 alleged to be due and owing by the Estate of Louisa Ann Manchester, deceased, to the plaintiffs for the price of goods and merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant and interest thereon as agreed as per a settled account a copy of which was attached to the Statement of Claim. The plaintiffs claimed the said sum of $925.57 and interest thereon at the Bank Rate from the 1st January, 1967 to date of payment.

2 The defendant denied that the alleged or any account was settled between the plaintiffs and, herself on the 4 ^th February, 1967, or at all. The defendant denied that there was an agreement to pay interest. She stated that the plaintiffs' cause of action, if any, was against Louisa Ann Manchester, deceased, and others jointly, and that Winifred Alma Manchester, deceased, one of the joint debtors, gave mortgage security to the plaintiffs for the said debt which was accepted by the plaintiffs in discharge of the said cause of action. Finally, the defendant pleaded that the alleged debt was and is barred by the Limitation Act Cap. 45 of the Laws of the State.

3 Arthur Mendes Dickinson, the first-named plaintiff, was the only witness to testily at the hearing. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, counsel for the defendant submitted that there was no case for the defendant to answer, and he elected to stand on his submission.

4 The following are the facts. The plaintiffs, who are brother and sister, carry on business at Princes Street, Basseterre, in partnership, under the name of “P. Dickinson”. Some years previously, business was carried on by the Plaintiffs' father, Pierson Dickinson, who at the date of his death had a branch at Bank Street and one at Princes Street, Basseterre. The plaintiffs' father died on 24th February, 1959 having by his will left the said business to the plaintiffs. Among the assets of the business were the debts due to it. At the date of death of the plaintiffs' father, the books of the business showed that “Miss L. (Louisa) Manchester and others” were indebted to the business on what the firm-named plaintiff describes as a joint and several accounts. The others, according to the first-named plaintiff', were Winifred Alma Manchester and Alice Sophia Manchester. The account known as that of “Miss L. Manchester and others” existed in connection with a dry foods business, which was, carried an in partnership by Louisa Manchester, Winifred Alma Manchester and Alice Sophia Manchester, all sisters.

5 Alice Sophia Manchester died on 4th January, 1960 intestate, leaving her surviving, her two sisters Louisa Manchester (hereinafter referred to as Louisa) and Winifred Alma Manchester (hereinafter referred to as Winifred). Thereafter, the account of “L. Manchester and others” continued as it had been operating before until 10th November, 1961.

6 On 24th March, 1961 Louisa died leaving a last will whereby she appointed the defendant Kathleen Manchester one of the two executors of her will. Probate of the said will was on 20th March, 1962 granted to the defendant, the other executor having renounced his right to apply for probate.

7 Louisa and Winifred owned a piece of land situate at Sandy Point and known as The Cavalry Ground. Sugarcane was grown on that land by Bourkes Estate and the revenue from the sugar cane was paid into the plaintiffs' business on account of the amount owing by L. Manchester and others. This was done in pursuance of an agreement which was made in Louisa's lifetime.

8 On the 15th August, 1961 Winifred paid $240.00 into the account of L. Manchester and others. Bourkes Estate had paid Winifred $250.00 which was derived from the sale of sugar cane grown on The Cavalry Ground in respect of the 1960/61 Cane Crop. The defendant told the first-named plaintiff that she required whatever liquid assets there were in Louisa's estate in order to assist her with the operation of the said estate. The defendant asked the first-named plaintiff for a refund of $125.00 being one-half the amount actually paid to Winifred for the sale of sugar cane. On the 10th November, 1961 the first-named plaintiff gave the defendant $125.00 and obtained from her a receipt for the said sum. The first-named plaintiff then divided the account of L. Manchester and others into two new accounts, viz.

• (a) The Estate of Louisa A. Manchester c/o Miss K.D. Manchester, Executrix, $618.61 and

• (b) Miss Winifred Alma Manchester, $503.62.

9 The first-named plaintiff then closed the old account and told the defendant that inasmuch as no further...