Kolkata Court May 1876 Judgments
Nocoor Chunder Bose Vs. Kally Coomar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal328
Pontifex, J.1. I was referred to two cases said to be conflicting with one another. One Parbati Charan Mookerjee v. Ramnarayan Matilal 5 B.L.R. 396 decided by Macpherson, J. and the other Brammamayi Dasi v. Abhai Charan Chowdry 7 B.L.R. 489 decided by Norman and Phear, JJ. In each of these cases interest had been paid up to within a short time of the date of suit. And in the second case, Phear, J. expressly held that limitation did not apply, however interest had been paid. 'As long,' he said, 'as the plaintiff forebore to make demand of the principal, and the defendant at the stipulated periods paid the monthly sums by way of interest, so long it was, as it seems to me, impossible in reason to say that the plaintiff had any cause of suit.' In my opinion, both of the cases cited are adverse to the plaintiff's claim, and, if additional authority was necessary, I might refer to the case of Hempammal v. Hanuman 2 Mad. H.C. Rep. 472. In the present case neither principal nor interest has b...
Tag this Judgment!Harris Vs. Harris and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal286
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We are of opinion that both these suits have been correctly decided.2. Mrs. Harris was entitled as against her husband to the property in question, and could sue him for it under Section 7, Act III of 1874.[1]3. If the suit was to recover the articles themselves or their value, it was in form an action of detinue, not of trover; but, whatever the form may have been, we are of the same opinion as the. Court of Common Pleas in Brinsmead v. Harrison L.R. 6 C.P. 584 that a judgment in such a suit, without satisfaction, does not change the property in the goods. The true explanation of the doctrine attributed to Jervis, C.J. in Buckland v. Johnson 15 C.B. 145 is this, that a man who has recovered the value of his goods in one action in the shape of damages, shall not be allowed to recover the goods themselves in another action; but this reason only applies when the damages have been actually recovered.[1] Section 7: A married woman may maintain a suit in her own name f...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuggobutty Dossee Vs. Shamachurn Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal338
Richard Garth, C.J.1. After stating the facts, delivered the judgment of the Court. The portion of the judgment relating to 14-48ths share was as follows:With respect to the remaining 14-48ths, the defendant Anundlall claims to be a purchaser in priority to, or in exclusion of, the mortgage on the following grounds: First with respect to Nobinchunder's 6-48tbs and Muttylall's 4-48ths, the defendant Anundlall proves that the right, title and interest of Nobinchunder and Muttylall in the property were sold by the Sheriff on the 7th July 1864 under a writ of execution issued on 23rd March in a suit brought by one Thomas Owen against Muttylall and Nobinchunder, such sale being made to one Gourychurn, by whose direction the purchase was transferred to Anundlall, to whom a conveyance was executed by the Sheriff' on the 10th of August 1864.2. The plaintiff, on the other hand, insists that the alleged agreement for a mortgage of this property to her was made on the 6th of May 1863, and that th...
Tag this Judgment!The Delhi and London Bank Vs. Wordie and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal250
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, we think that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed, upon the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff's were, at the commencement of the year 1875, creditors of the defendants Morrell and Lightfoot to a very large amount. Morrell and Lightfoot were the owners at that time of certain land in the districts of Backergunge and Jessore, Morrell being entitled to a 14-anna share, and Lightfoot to a 2-anna share, in those lands. Morrell and Lightfoot were indebted, at that time, to several creditors, and the defendant Lightfoot, had left this country, and given Morrell certain powers-of-attorney to act for him during his absence. In this state of things, on the 14th of May 1875, Morrell, acting not only for himself, but professing to act for Lightfoot also, under the powers-of-attorney, executed in Calcutta a deed by which he conveyed the said lands (amongst other property) to the defendants Wordie and L...
Tag this Judgment!Cohen and anr. Vs. Cassim Nana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1876
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal265
Richard Garth, C.J.1. There is no doubt in this case as to the plaintiffs' right to recover; and the only question is as to the amount to which they are entitled.2. It is admitted that the defendant refused to accept the bags, which were to have been delivered on the 28th February, and on the 15th and. 31st March 1875; and it was found as a fact by the learned Judge in the Court below, and we entirely agree with him in so finding, that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to deliver the bags on these above dates.3. It was proved, on the part of the plaintiffs, that these gunny bags were marketable articles in Calcutta; and Mr. Alexander Landale, who is a broker, stated that the greater portion of the gunny bag business passed through his hands, and that, in the month of February 1875, the price of Borneo gunny bags was from Rs. 20 to Rs. 21 per 100; at the middle of March, Rs, 20; and at the end of March, Rs. 19 per 100. This witness does not appear to have been cross-examined, and no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›