SOBHI KRONFLI, Applicant-Defendant v, KHABBAZ BROTHERS, Respondents-Plaintiffs
Account-s-Account stated-Two accounts maintained by parties may be settled
separately
Two persons may have more than one running account between them,
and where goods are supplied separately from a shop and a factory owned
by the same party, and separate books are kept, the settlement of one ac-
count is not a bar to the rendering and settlement of the otber account.
Revision
May 16, 1936. Gorman C.J.: The claim was for £E.45.230
m/rns, made up of three items, vi:., £E.23.955 m/ms in respect of
mineral waters supplied by the respondents' firm, the Tropical Soda
Water Company, to the Gordon Hotel, of which the applicant was part
owner, £E.7.940 m/ms in respect of unreturned empty bottles, and
£E.28.745 m/rns for groceries supplied by the respondent firm, Khab-
baz Brothers, to the applicant's house. less £E.15.410 m/rns credited
by the respondents for goods supplied by the applicant to tbem.
The applicant put the respondents to the proof of the items. The
judge below heJd tl;J.t the respondents, plaintiffs before him, had dis-
charged the burden of proof, and in my view there was ample evidence
to support the finding, and no revision will be allowed on this score.
There was a second defence, which was that there had been an .
account stated by the respondents which covered the period of the
transactions 1 and 3 above-mentioned, and of which payment had been
'" Court: Gorman C.J., Bennett I. and Flaxman P.I.
made. The applicant's co-proprietor of the Gordon Hotel was the
respondents' brother, but in August, 1934 the partnership was severed,
the applicant taking over the hotel and the debts and paying out a
certain sum to the outgoing partner in respect of his capital. In August
the respondents, knowning of this and desiring to have their outstand-
ing debts paid, sent in an account, being the account between Khabbaz
Brothers and the Gordon Hotel for groceries supplied. There wa~
no item in this account in respect of the soda waters supplied by the
Tropical Soda Water Company. The account presented was duly met,
and it is argued that no claim can now be made by the respondents in
respect of the soda supplied up to this time.
The judge rejected the contention, and I think rightly. It was
not suggested or pleaded that anything in the nature of an estoppel
arose through the failure of the respondents to include the Tropical
Soda Water in the Khabbaz Brothers' account, by reason of the appli-
cant having thereby been misled into terms of settlement which would
otherwise not have been acceptable to him.
It is simply a case of the soda water account being overlooked,
and respondents admitted that, had they remembered it, they would
have included it. This, however, does not prevent them from now
claiming. The two accounts, the Khabbaz account, and the Tropical
Soda Water account, were distinct. The applicant sent direct to the
manager of the factory for his requirements, and did not order them
through the shop. Separate folios in the accounts were kept by the
applicant for the shop account and the factory account. Two persons
can have more than one running account between each other, and, so
long as there is no bankruptcy, each account can be treated separately,
and the fact that one account is rendered and settled does not prevent
of itself the other account being rendered and settled. Only some-
thing in the nature of an estoppel could do that, and no estoppel arises here.
The same reasoning is applicable in the case of the house account.
This was an account separate from that of the botel, and no items from
it were included in the account which was settled in August 1934.
Bennett A.G.: I concur.
Flaxman P.I.: I concur.
Application dismissed