1. The defendant firm carries on a commission agency business at Hathras. The plaintiff firm directed the defendant firm to purchase and supply cotton yarn from Hathras. The defendant firm wrote that seven bales were ready and could be supplied at a certain rate and that the remaining sixteen bales could be supplied within a month at other rates specified in the letter. The plaintiff firm agreed. The seven bales of cotton were supplied but the remaining bales could not be supplied at the rate originally mentioned, because the firm from which the said bales were to have been purchased became bankrupt. The market rate subsequently rose and there was no possibility of getting the yarn at the rate originally mentioned. The plaintiff firm claims damages on account of the remaining bales, which were supplied at a higher rate. It asserts that the defendant firm was under an obligation to supply the remaining bales at the rate originally settled, but the defendant firm states that the plaintiff firm had agreed to take those bales at the rate subsequently charged.
2. The defendant firm was, however, only a firm dealing in a commission agency business. There was no responsibility on it to supply the goods at a particular rate, because it was acting as an agent who had agreed to purchase cotton yarn for the plaintiff firm and to supply it at such rate as was then prevailing. The Courts below agreed in finding that the defendant firm was not liable otherwise than as a commission agent. The first Court, however, passed a decree against the defendant firm on account of its failure to deliver the remaining sixteen bales at the rate originally stated, which the lower Appellate Court has discharged and we think rightly As a commission agent the defendant firm was not liable to supply the cotton yarn at a particular rate or otherwise than at the rate prevailing in the market at the time of supply, though the name of the firm from whom the purchase was to be made was not disclosed. The plaintiff firm had, moreover, agreed, according to the lower Appellate Court, to take the remaining sixteen bales at the higher rate prevalent at the time of supply. The status assigned to the defendant firm in the previous order of remand, therefore, ceases to be material. On either ground this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.