Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen

JudgeMillin J, Malan J and Neser J
Judgment Date10 March 1947
Citation1947 (1) SA 576 (T)
Hearing Date27 February 1947
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Millin, J.:

This is an appeal, by leave, from a decree of provisional sentence granted by BLACKWELL, J., in Chambers. The action was on a promissory note made by the defendant, now appellant, in favour of the plaintiff, now respondent, on the 1st January, 1933. The note was for £300 with interest at ten per cent. per annum and was due on the 28th February, 1933. It was admitted that the appellant had made the following payments and no more: On the 1st November, 1943, £3 10s.; on the 9th December, 1943, £3 10s.; on the 11th January, 1944, £3 10s.; on the 30th March, 1944, £7; on the 8th June, 1944, £7; on the 4th July, 1944, £3 10s.; on the 3rd August, 1944, £7; on the 12th September, 1944, £3 10s.; on the 14th October, 1944, £3 10s.; on the 1st February, 1945, £12. The total of these payments is £54, and it will be seen that they

Millin J

were all made after the amount of arrear interest equalled the amount of the capital sum, which happened at the end of the year 1942. The respondent restricted his claim of interest to the sum of £300 and provisional sentence was pronounced for £300 capital, £300 interest and costs. The appeal is brought on three grounds: (1) that on the evidence the promissory note was novated and could not form the basis of any action against the defendant; (2) that if the plaintiff was entitled to sue on the promissory note, the amount of interest awarded should have been only £246, i.e. £300, less the £54 paid between the 1st November, 1943, and the 1st February, 1945; (3) that as by virtue of sec. 29 (1) (d) of Act 32 of 1944, an action on the note could have been instituted in a magistrate's court, Supreme Court costs should not have been awarded.

The appellant relied on an agreement contained in a letter which passed between the parties. These are letters of the 26th January and the 1st February, 1945, addressed by the appellant to the respondent; and the respondent's reply dated the 26th January, 1945. Before dealing with the agreement to be extracted from this correspondence, it is necessary to set out some facts which appear from the appellant's affidavit and letters. The parties are brothers. The consideration for the note was a loan of £300 made by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent was in possession of a certain movable property belonging to the appellant, which the plaintiff claimed to hold as a pledge. This property included some gramophone records and books. There was an arrangement which began on the 1st November, 1943, by which the appellant was to pay the respondent £3 10s. per month. These payments the appellant stopped after the 14th October, 1944. The reasons for this he explains in his letter of the 26th January, 1945. First, the respondent had refused a request to return the appellant his books and gramophone records; second, the respondent, who had by that time received £42 after waiting nearly eleven years before he got anything at all, had made the 'high-handed demand' to be paid at the rate of £10 per month. This the appellant regarded as deplorable. It had 'put his back up' and so he discontinued the payments of £3 10s. a month. However, he expressed himself as very keen to liquidate the amount owing as soon as possible, and so proposed that if the respondent would let him have his books and gramophone records back he would pay the arrears of £3 10s. a month for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 TPD 411 United Overseas Bank v Jiwani [1977] 1 All ER 733 (QB) Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) E Volkskas Bank Ltd v Wilkinson and Three Similar Cases 1992 (2) SA 388 (C) Volkskas Bpk v Meyer 1966 (2) SA 379 (T) Volkskas Bpk v Zagno......
  • F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(2) SA 137 (T) Taylor v Hollard (1886) 2 SAR 62 Union Government v Jordaan 's Executors 1916 TPD 411 Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) Van Diggelen v Triggs 1911 SR 154 Volkskas Bank Ltd v Wilkinson and Three Similar Cases 1992 (2) SA 388 (K) Welsh v Readman (1909) 19 CT......
  • Nedbank Ltd and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1973 (2) SA 137 (T): referred to Union Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 (1) TPD 411: referred to Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T): referred Verulam Medicentre (Pty) Ltd v Ethekweni Municipality 2005 (2) SA 451 (D): referred to. H England Bank Polski v K J Mulder & C......
  • Ndamase v Functions 4 All
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Engineering Management Services (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 534 (A) Tenant v Lamb 1947 (2) SA 659 (W) Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) Grotius The Jurisprudence of Holland (translated by Lee) vol 2 at 266 - 9 D Harms Civil Procedure in the Magistrates' Courts - Commentary a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 TPD 411 United Overseas Bank v Jiwani [1977] 1 All ER 733 (QB) Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) E Volkskas Bank Ltd v Wilkinson and Three Similar Cases 1992 (2) SA 388 (C) Volkskas Bpk v Meyer 1966 (2) SA 379 (T) Volkskas Bpk v Zagno......
  • F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(2) SA 137 (T) Taylor v Hollard (1886) 2 SAR 62 Union Government v Jordaan 's Executors 1916 TPD 411 Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) Van Diggelen v Triggs 1911 SR 154 Volkskas Bank Ltd v Wilkinson and Three Similar Cases 1992 (2) SA 388 (K) Welsh v Readman (1909) 19 CT......
  • Nedbank Ltd and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1973 (2) SA 137 (T): referred to Union Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 (1) TPD 411: referred to Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T): referred Verulam Medicentre (Pty) Ltd v Ethekweni Municipality 2005 (2) SA 451 (D): referred to. H England Bank Polski v K J Mulder & C......
  • Ndamase v Functions 4 All
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Engineering Management Services (Pty) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 534 (A) Tenant v Lamb 1947 (2) SA 659 (W) Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) Grotius The Jurisprudence of Holland (translated by Lee) vol 2 at 266 - 9 D Harms Civil Procedure in the Magistrates' Courts - Commentary a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Statutory in duplum Rule as an Indirect Debt Relief Mechanism
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...(2008 et seq and loose-leaf) in par 10.6.4.29See Union Government v Jordaan’s Executor 1916 TPD 411; Van Coppenhagen v VanCoppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T); Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA137 (T); LTA Construction Bpk vAdministrateur, Transvaal supra note 28 at 482 (for a discussion, see JM O......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT