Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159

Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Brunsdon, a person, died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife, Brunsdon's Estate. Brunsdon's Estate and Others, persons, were the executors of Brunsdon's will.

Brunsdon's Estate and Others sold certain of Brunsdon's assets to a third party, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was unaware that the assets belonged to Brunsdon's estate at the time he purchased them.

Brunsdon's Estate and Others then used the proceeds from the sale of the assets to pay off their own debts.

Brunsdon's Estate then discovered that Brunsdon's Estate and Others had sold certain of Brunsdon's assets to Mr. Smith without authorisation. Brunsdon's Estate demanded that Brunsdon's Estate and Others return the proceeds from the sale of the assets. Brunsdon's Estate and Others argued that they were not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Brunsdon's Estate then sued Brunsdon's Estate and Others for the return of the proceeds from the sale of the assets.

Held:

The Court held that Brunsdon's Estate and Others were liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the assets to Brunsdon's Estate. The Court reasoned that Brunsdon's Estate and Others had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling Brunsdon's assets without authorisation and that Brunsdon's Estate and Others were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Key Facts:

• A person died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife.
• The executors of the will sold certain of the person's assets to a third party without authorisation.
• The third party was unaware that the assets belonged to the person's estate at the time he purchased them.
• The executors of the will used the proceeds from the sale of the assets to pay off their own debts.
• The person's wife discovered that the executors of the will had sold certain of the person's assets without authorisation and demanded that they return the proceeds from the sale.
• The executors of the will argued that they were not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.
• The person's wife sued the executors of the will for the return of the proceeds from the sale.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the executors of the will were liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the assets to the person's wife because the executors of the will had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling the person's assets without authorisation and that the executors of the will were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159 is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.