1. The question is whether the appellants are liable on the rental agreements executed by four of the defendants, but not executed by the deceased person whom they represent. The plaint alleges that the documents were executed on behalf of the agricultural association of which the deceased was a member. The 13th issue raises the question 'whether the defendants 2 to 5 executed the lease deeds on behalf of the defendants 6 to 18 also;' but there is no finding on that issue. Admittedly it is not stated in the documents that the executants were acting on behalf of others, nor do they sign in that capacity.
2. The only questions argued are with reference to the third issue. We see no reason for differing from the Subordinate Judge in his finding as to nonpayment of Rs. 1,700, and in the finding that there was no such extraordinary rain as to make the special clauses applicable. The finding with regard to this point is that there was really no payment and no valid discharge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. Judgment on memorandum of objections.--It is admitted by the second defendant that a month after the arrangement made between his lessors he became aware of it, and that in February 1892 the defendant had express notice of the same arrangement. The Subordinate Judge also in effect finds that the defendant was aware of it from the outset. But he observes there is no evidence to show that this defendant or his co-lessees assented to the arrangement and agreed to pay the rent to the plaintiff only, and accordingly he holds that payments made to the first defendant are valid notwithstanding the arrangement. The Subordinate Judge is, in our opinion, mistaken in supposing that the assent of the lessees was necessary, that otherwise they were at liberty to disregard the arrangement. A payment made by a debtor to one of two joint-creditors, between whom it has been agreed that the other only shall receive the sum, cannot, when made with notice of the agreement and in defiance of it, be treated as a valid payment in discharge of the debt. See Phillips v. Clogett 11 M. and W. 84. Such a payment may properly be described as made in fraud of the person who was entitled to receive the money. The lessees, other than the second defendant, were his partners and must be held to be bound by the notice which he had. The plaintiffs have in their memorandum of abjections claimed Rs. 4,590. They are entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,965, notwithstanding that on taking accounts between them and the first defendant the latter may prove to be entitled to some part of it. Each party will pay and receive proportionate costs. The memorandum of objections is, therefore, allowed.