WHEAT POOL LIABLE.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20626, 16 August 1932, Page 13

WHEAT POOL LIABLE.

MONEY PAID . WITHOUT AUTHORITY. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT. Recently the Official Assignee at Ashburton claimed repayment of £ll9 5s Id to him allegedly wrongfully paid by the Xew Zealand Wheat-growers > Co-opera-tive Association, Ltd. (Wheat Pool), to the Noir Zealand Loau and Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd., under an order given by William John Beatty, farmer, of Lyndhurst, The payment, it was stated, was made on October 7th, ]930. The grounds of tho claim were that the money was paid without Beatty's authority and the case turned on the interpretation of an order given by Beatty in 1929, authorising the Whoatgrowers' Association to pay the amount to the Xew Zealapd Loan snd Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd. Yesterday the revived decision of las Honour Mr Justice Kennedy wag given, in which the association was found liable to pay the amount concerned to the - Ofiicial Assignee. In his judgment his Honour said that Beatty was a wheat-grower who, from 1028 onwards, wsb indebted to his stock and statiou agents, the New Zealand Loan and .Mercantile Agency Company, Limited. By March, 1929, ho had received an advance from tho Rural Intermediate Credit Board and had given security to that Board over his land and his wheat crop, lie became a member of tho Wheat Pool by signing on September 7th, 1928, the Wheat Pool's co-operative wheat-soiling eontract. On March 4th, 1929, the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company took from Beattv an authority to receive nfoneys.

Wheat Crop Affected. Boaltv said nothing was stated its to the onlor boiug irrevocable or indefinitely continuing, and said he understood it to affect tho wheat crop for one season only. While WiJson, who took tho order, was naturally unablo to state exactly what was said between Beatty and himself, although, ho said, in an affidavit, that ho understood that tho order was irrevocable, and was intended by both parties to bind any moneys that might, at any time thereafter, be payable by the Wheat Pool. It was not contended that there was any authority, other than that conferred by the document which was forwarded to the Wheat Pool and which was in the following terms: — "To the Manager. New Zealand Wheat-groovers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., Christohurch—--1 hereby authorise New Zealand Loan and' Mercantile Agency Co., Ltd., Christchurch, approved brokacting for and on behalf of the Now Zealand Wheat-growers' Cooperative Association, Ltd., to receive on my behalf any moneys due to me by your association under its cooperative wheat-selling contract with me. Receipt given by. the above broker(s) is sufficient discharge on my behalf. —W. J. Beatty, Aslibnrton Rural, via Aslibnrton." Sural Credit Board. Payments were made from time to time by the Wheat Pool to the Rural Intermediate Crodit Board, and on September 9th, 1929, two payments amounting to £GS 12s 2d were made by the Wheat Pool to the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Limited. This sum was credited by that company to its debtor's account in the mrjiner customary with stock and station agents. In respect of the next season's wheat, tho Wheat Pool made a payment of £ll9 5s Id on October 7th, 1930, to the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. A week iciter Beatty wsus adjudged bankrupt on his own petition. The Official Assignee now claimed that this £ll9 5s Id war.moQ.6y due'to the bankrupt and was paid by the Wheat Pool to the New Zealand Lean and Mercantile Agency Company without authority. ' Th# order did not in terms cover money subsequently to become due. Its terms were "any moneys due to me by your association." "Any moneys" meant "any sums of money" and the word "due" meant "presently owing or payable" and did not describe moneys which might thereafter become due, declared his Honour. The words used were not ambiguous, and there was no context indicating that tho word "due" was not to have its ordinary meaning. The order was one only of some hundreds taken at about the same time,' and it was ottly to be expected that in some instances as in this ease it would he inapplicable. On September 9th, 1929, the Wheat Pool nevertheless paid moneys not due on or about March 4tli, 1929, but, subsequently becoming due, ta the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Limited, and a year later, in respect of the following season's wheat, made the payment now in question.

Mistaken interpretation. The' document received did not authorise this payment, the dant received no £urthe*authority, The defendant chose to iet as if there were added to the d6#n»ent the words "or hereinafter to become due." The fact that the Wfceit JPool onco acted under a mistaliißn interpretation of the order did not Entitle it so to act a second time a year later. Nor could it be said that the. payment was authorised in fact, although the defendant was unaware of " any authority other than that contained, in the order. There ■fras no d®£ntyp testimony as to any statements made or authority conferred when the order was taken. The man who signed it said he "understood" it was for one season, and he who received it stated ho "understood" it was to last during the continuance of the Pool. The fact emerged then that nothing really was said by the one party to tho other, said his Honour, and one came back to the proper interpretation of the document. It followed that the Wheat POol was not authorised by the bankrupt to pay the sum of £ll9 5s Id to the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Limited, and that the liability to the bankrupt was not discharged by that payment. The Wheat. Pool was accordingly liable to pay the sum of £ll9 os Id to the Official Assignee. If would pay also tho sum of £7 <s as costs and disbursements to him.