Houson v Emanuel

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Manning, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 September 1959
• Neutral Citation: LC 1959 HC 11
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 5 of 1959
• Date: 02 September 1959

Supreme Court of the Windward and Leeward Islands. (Appellate Jurisdiction).

Manning, J.

Appeal No. 5 of 1959

Houson

and

Emanuel

Appearances:

Vernon A. Cooper for appellant.

Kenneth A. Monplaisir for respondent

Real property - Trespass to land

Facts: The respondent was lessee of the land in question. The respondent sued the appellant for damages for having entered on the land and picked a number of fruits. The appellant's defence was that he owned the property having purchased it from the respondent's lessor. On the question whether the appellant had a right as owner to enter the premises.

Held: The respondent was entitled to notice by the appellant. Under Article 1566 of the Civil Code the terms of the lease protected the respondent so that the appellant had no right to enter. Judgment given for the respondent.

Manning, J.

1 The facts in this case were as follows:

2 On the 12 ^th January 1959, the respondent Emanuel was the lessee of certain land at Maisoneuve. On that date, the appellant Houson entered on the land, cleared a portion of it, and picked 100 coconuts. Emanuel then sued Houson in a magistrate's court for damages. The defence of Houson was that he was the owner of the land, having bought it from Emanuel's lessor, Valmont, on the 15 ^th December 1958. The learned magistrate rejected this defence and awarded damages to Emanuel.

3 Houson has appealed and both counsel applied that the appeal be heard during the Legal Vacation.

4 Mr. Cooper, for the appellant, based his first argument on the fact that the learned magistrate had found certain facts, as to which there was no evidence. These were that the lease by Valmont to Emanuel was made on the 8 ^th May 1958, and was for a period of five (5) years; and that it had been registered on the 13 ^th January 1959. The lease had not been produced and there was no oral evidence of these facts; but there was evidence of them in the recitals of an agreement made by Valmont on the 5 ^th February 1959. (Exhibit JE1). Valmont was Houson's predecessor in title and the admissions in the recitals are binding on Houson.

5 Mr. Cooper also argued that Houson was at all material times owner of the coconuts picked and that he had a right to pick them. The deed conveying the land from Valmont to Houson had a clause making the sale subject to the right of Emanuel to reap his gardens and ground provisions or to be paid compensation for them by Valmont. As found by the learned magistrate, the rights of the parties were governed by Article 1566 of...