Kindersley and Hutchins, JJ.
1. This was a suit to recover from an undivided family a sum lent to the two eldest sons for the purchase of indigo. Those two, the first and second defendants, gave a promissory note for the amount, but the note is not admissible in evidence, and the plaintiff sues, not on the note, but for money lent.
2. The first objection taken is that such a suit cannot be brought where a note has been given, and Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R. 7 Cal. 256 was relied upon. It appears to us that this case falls within the first class of cases described in Sir RICHARD GARTH'S judgment. The cause of action 'for money lent' was complete in itself before the giving of the note, and defendants' request and the payment by plaintiff, which constitute the cause of action, can be proved independently of the note.
3. The second objection is that the seventh defendant, the father, should not have been made liable, but we understand the lower Courts to have found that the money was lent for the purposes of a trade, in which all the members of the family were interested, and was applied for the purchase of indigo in the course of that trade.
4. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.