Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Dobbs (3)

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1912 AD 484

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Appellant v Dobbs Respondent (3)
1912 AD 484

1912 AD p484

Citation	1912 AD 484
Court	Appellate Division, Bloemfontein
Judge	Coram Innes ACJ, Solomon J, CG Maasdorp JP, Laurence AJP and J De Villiers JP
Heard	September 12, 1912
Judgment	September 13, 1912

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

New Trial — Jury Trial — Breach of Contract — Authority of General Manager — Act 23 of 1891 (C.).

Headnote : Kopnota

In deciding whether there should be a new trial in a case tried by jury, the test is not whether the Court or the presiding Judge would have arrived at the same conclusion, but whether the verdict was so unjust that no reasonable men, duly assisted and instructed by the Judge, could properly return it.

1912 AD p485

The cases of Metropolitan Railway Co. v Wright (11 A.C. 152), Cox v English and Australian Bank (1905, A.C. 168), and Hunter v Cape Tramways (17 S.C.R. 80) approved.

The respondent had obtained a verdict for £300 damages for breach of a contract of employment, found by the jury to have been entered into in Ireland between the respondent and D., the general manager in South Africa of an insurance company. The obligation of the respondent under the contract was to act as manager of a fruit farm, the property of the company.

Held, that even if as between himself and the company D. had no authority to bind the company with relation to the fruit farm, the fact that he was general manager entitled persons dealing with him to imply such an authority.

The decision of SEARLE, J., and a jury in the Cape Provincial Division in Dobbs v Norwich Union, etc., affirmed.

Case Information

Appeal by way of application for a new trial of an action heard before SEARLE, J., and a special jury in the Cape Provincial Division. A similar application had been made to the Cape Provincial Division (full Bench) on June 25th, when that Court decided that recourse should be had to the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division had on September 11th affirmed the decision of the Provincial Court. See Norwich Union, etc., v Dobbs (1912 CPD 571, and supra, p. 468).

The plaintiff, Dobbs, sued the company for £300 damages for breach of contract, alleging that one Dockrall, the general manager of the company in South Africa, had agreed with him in Ireland, in July, 1911, to engage him as permanent manager of the company's fruit farm at Groot Drakenstein, Cape Province, at a salary of £15 per month, with free residence and grazing rights; that Dockrall was duly authorised to enter into such contract,

1912 AD p486

or, alternatively, was acting within the scope of his authority; that he, the plaintiff, had sold his farm in Ireland at a loss, and had come to South Africa to take up the position, and that the company had refused to carry out the terms of the contract.

The defendant company pleaded that Dockrall had no authority to enter into the alleged contract, and that in doing so he was acting outside the scope of his authority.

SEARLE, J., submitted to the jury certain questions which, with their answers, were as follows:-

(1) Did Dockrall make a definite contract in the company's name with plaintiff?

Answer: Yes.

(2) If so, was it the contract stated in the declaration, or what were its terms?

Answer: Yes.

(3) Had Dockrall authority to make such a contract on behalf of the company?

Answer: Yes.

(4) Did the company hold out Dockrall to the plaintiff as able to make such a contract on its behalf, or did it ratify the contract?

Answer: General Manager is the Company.

(5) If there was a contract binding on the company, was there a breach?

Answer: Yes.

(6) If there was a breach, what are the damages?

Answer: £300.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £300 and costs.

The company now applied to have the judgment set aside and judgment entered for the defendant, or, alternatively, for a new trial, on the following grounds:

(1)

That the verdict of the jury (a) that there was a definite contract made between Dockrall and the plaintiff, (b) that the contract was in terms of the declaration, and (c) that it was made by Dockrall on behalf of the defendant company, is against the weight of evidence.

1912 AD p487

(2)

That there was no evidence that Dockrall had authority to make such a contract on behalf of the company, and that the learned Judge misdirected the jury in stating to them that there was some evidence of such authority.

(3)

That the verdict of the jury that Dockrall had...