TIN HING LEATHER CO (A FIRM) v. MIN MIN SHOES CO (A FIRM)

HCSA000003/1976

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
On appeal from Small Claims Tribunal.
1976 No. 3
(Small Claims)

—————–

BETWEEN
Tin Hing Leather Co. (a firm) Appellants
and
Min Min Shoes Co. (a firm) Respondents

—————–

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 4th February 1977.

—————–

JUDGMENT

—————–

Huggins, J.A.:

1. The Appellants claimed upon two cheques drawn by the Respondents in favour of Luen Kee (from whom they had ordered goods) or bearer.There was evidence that YIP Wai-man, the proprietor of Luen Kee, indorsed the cheques and delivered them to the Appellants. LuenKee failed to deliver the goods ordered and the Respondents stopped payment of the cheques.

2. Dismissing the claim the adjudicator said:

“The evidence before me does not show that the person who indorsed the two cheques is a partner or an authorized agent of the firm’Luen Kee’. The plaintiff [sic] only mentioned that the person signing is a foki of the firm”.

With respect to him that was not correct nor was it the entire picture: as I have said, there was evidence that the person signingwas the proprietor of the firm – and that evidence came from the proprietor of the defendant firm. The adjudicator did not say thathe disbelieved that evidence and I can only assume that when he came to decide the case some weeks after the first hearing he overlookedwhat amounted to an admission of a valid indorsement. If indorsement was necessary I think it was clearly proved.

3. But the matter does not rest there. They were bearer cheques and indorsement by Luen Kee was not necessary. The Appellants were thebearers of the cheques, and of the two innocent parties who stood to suffer from the default of Luen Kee they were in the strongerposition.

4. I would allow the appeal and enter judgment for the Appellants for $2,714 and costs.

4th February 1977.

Representation: