Skip to content


Kirtee Chunder Mitter Vs. Struthers and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1879)ILR4Cal336
AppellantKirtee Chunder Mitter
RespondentStruthers and anr.
Excerpt:
release to one of several partners - contract act (ix of 1872), section 44. - .....defendants g.m. struthers. the form of the receipt which expresses the agreement is as follows: (reads receipt.) whatever the english law would have been as to the effect of the document, we arc governed here by the contract act. it is a receipt in satisfaction from one of several persons jointly liable for debt and damages, then section 44 says: (reads section 44 of the contract act.) i think that section applies. it is said that the section applies only to a release to a man from his promise before breach, and not to discharge alter breach. that i think is too narrow a construction. i think the meaning generally is that the release to one of several contractors does not discharge the co-contractors. i ought to say a word as to the latter part of the document by which the plaintiff's.....
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. This action is for debt for the price of goods sold and for damages for non-acceptance. The admitted facts show that, after action brought, the plaintiff entered into an arrangement in writing with one of the defendants G.M. Struthers. The form of the receipt which expresses the agreement is as follows: (Reads receipt.) Whatever the English Law would have been as to the effect of the document, we arc governed here by the Contract Act. It is a receipt in satisfaction from one of several persons jointly liable for debt and damages, Then Section 44 says: (Reads Section 44 of the Contract Act.) I think that section applies. It is said that the section applies only to a release to a man from his promise before breach, and not to discharge alter breach. That I think is too narrow a construction. I think the meaning generally is that the release to one of several contractors does not discharge the co-contractors. I ought to say a word as to the latter part of the document by which the plaintiff's undertook to withdraw this action described as one against him--that is, G.M. Struthers and others. It is admitted by the other partners that they were no parties to the agreement expressed in the receipt, and there was no contract with them to withdraw from the suit as against them. There is therefore no breach of faith in the continuance of the action against them.


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