Skip to content


The Anglo-Indian Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Gerald Frank Brierly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.256
AppellantThe Anglo-Indian Trading Co. Ltd.
RespondentGerald Frank Brierly
Excerpt:
consideration - contract of management--no personal liability--consideration for contract cannot be consideration for later pro-note. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the..........a share of the profits arising from this concern. in consideration thereof, mr. eales caused the anglo-indian trading company to undertake the management and development of the rights comprised in the said license and to finance the concern. the company agreed to advance the monies required from time to time for working, prospecting, mining and developing the lands comprised in that license and also all monies for kist and other purposes. they promised also to maintain proper books of account, and it was further stipulated in the agreement entered into between the anglo-indian trading company on the one hand and subba row, brierly and eales on the other, 'that all sums so paid or advanced by the said anglo-indian trading company, limited, as aforesaid, shall bear interest at 2 per.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is brought by the plaintiff, the Anglo-Indian Trading Company, to recover a sum of money duo on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that there was no consideration. The admitted facts are these; one Mr. Subba Row and the defendant had obtained a manganese concession in Mysore and they agreed to admit Mr. W.J. Eales to a share of the profits arising from this concern. In consideration thereof, Mr. Eales caused the Anglo-Indian Trading Company to undertake the management and development of the rights comprised in the said license and to finance the concern. The Company agreed to advance the monies required from time to time for working, prospecting, mining and developing the lands comprised in that license and also all monies for kist and other purposes. They promised also to maintain proper books of account, and it was further stipulated in the agreement entered into between the Anglo-Indian Trading Company on the one hand and Subba Row, Brierly and Eales on the other, 'that all sums so paid or advanced by the said Anglo-Indian Trading Company, Limited, as aforesaid, shall bear interest at 2 per cent, above the current Bank of Madras rate for the time being and shall be taken to account monthly and be paid or deducted from the sale-proceeds of the ores as disposed of or shipped. The said Anglo-Indian Trading Company, Limited, shall be entitled by way of remuneration for their services to a commission of one rupee per ton of ore despatched from the Thasarapalle Railway Station, and shall be paid immediately after shipment.' The Company found, after working the mines for some time, that they were not profitable and, therefore, closed the concern and refused to make any further advance. Mr. Eales, who was really the Anglo-Indian Trading Company, represented to the defendant that he was bound to pay to the Anglo-Indian Trading Company a share of the monies alleged to be due to the Company by him and he accordingly executed the promissory-note on which the suit was now filed, Wallis, J., decided that the promissory-note had no consideration because, under the agreement, dated 17th February 1908, above referred to, there was no personal liability on the part of Subba Row, Brierly and Eales to pay to the plaintiff Company the monies advanced by them. He also held that the promissory-note cannot be treated in law as the consideration for the monies advanced by the plaintiffs because such monies were advanced really in consideration of the agreement of the 17th February 1903. On these grounds, he dismissed the suit.

2. On appeal, it is contended that the learned Judge is wrong on both these points. We are of opinion that the learned Judge is right. It was urged before us that the learned Judge has failed to consider the stipulation in Exhibit I, which is styled an indenture between Subba Row, Brierly and Eales that the management of the mining, etc., of the lands comprised in the license was to be in the hands of the Anglo-Indian Trading Company in accordance with the agreement, Exhibit A above referred to, and 'That in the event of monies being advanced by the parties hereto or by any person or persons, company or companies on their behalf, the same shall be accounted for to or by the parties in the same proportion to which they are entitled to profits.' Now, the Anglo-Indian Trading Company, the plaintiff, was not a party to this agreement, Exhibit I. The plaintiff is not bound by it and he cannot claim any lights under it. We may look at it, no doubt, to ascertain what the intention of the parties thereto was, but that intention had only reference to any mutual rights and obligations. Leaving this document, therefore, out of consideration, the intention of the parties as expressed in Exhibit A seems to be perfectly clear. The Anglo-Indian Trading Company had to find all the monies that were required and they were to take them back 'from the sale-proceeds of the ores as disposed of or shipped and they were entitled to get a commission of one rupee per ton of ore despatched from the Railway Station. It seems to us quite clear that there was no intention to impose any personal liability on any of the parties and the probabilities also are in favour of that conclusion. Mr. Eales, besides being really the Anglo-Indian Trading Company, was also a partner with others, i.e., Subba Row and Brierly, and if there is no personal obligation imposed upon him, there is no reason to suppose that it was intended that the others were to be personally liable.

3. We agree with the learned Judge also in his decision that the Anglo-Indian Trading Company did not make any advance on account of any request made by the defendant and Subba Row. They made such advances in consideration of the agreement of the 17th February 1908. We agree with him, therefore, that it cannot be treated as consideration for this promissory-note.

4. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //