HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0606 and id is 1 raw text is: IX MOORE IND. APP., 259 JUGGOMOHUN CHOSE V. KAISREECHUND [1862]
In ordinary cases and under ordinary circumstances these services on the part
of the Respondent would, no doubt, be sufficiently compensated by the provision in
that behalf contained in the decree of the Civil Court, but in this case their Lord-
ships find it proved by the Plaintiff's first witness, that the Respondent on Matthew
Abraham's death declared to him that he had worked like a slave in the Abkarry
business, and was merely paid for his labour; but that for the future he would not
do so unless he received an equal share with the others, meaning his brother's
widow and two sons; and the witness says that he soon afterwards mentioned this
conversation to the widow. If the widow dissented from this view, she ought, as
their Lordships think, to have communicated such dissent to the Respondent, but
she never did so. After her having so long availed herself of the Respondent's
services, which she knew to be rendered on the faith of his receiving one-half the
profits as a remuneration for those services, she and the other parties interested
in the estate could not, in their Lordships' opinion, be justly entitled to dispute the
right of the Respondent to be remunerated to that extent. Their Lordships, there-
fore, think, that it ought to have been declared by the decree that the Respondent was
entitled to an equal share of the profits of the Abkarry contract accrued after the
death of Matthew Abraham as a remuneration for his services in the execution of
that contract. Their Lordships [259) think also that, having regard to the evidence
to which they have last alluded, and to the Respondent having been permitted for so
many years to carry on the Abkarry contracts without any dissent having been ex-
pressed to the terms stipulated for by him, the decree of the Civil Court has not
dealt properly with the question of costs. They are of opinion that, under the
circumstances of the case, the costs, up to the hearing, ought not to have been given
against the Respondent by the decree, but ought to have been reserved until the
accounts were taken. The benefit which may result to the estate may form a
material ingredient in considering what ought ultimately to be done as to the costs,
and the mode in which the Respondent may account under the decree may also in-
fluence that question. The decree of the Civil Court having thus, in their Lordships'
opinion, gone too far, their Lordships think that there should be no costs of the
appeal to the Sudder Court or of this appeal.
Their Lordships, therefore, will humbly recommend Her Majesty to reverse the
decree of the Sudder Court, and to restore the decree of the Civil Court of Bellary,
modified as above pointed out (see Varden. Seth Sam v. Luckpathy Royjee Lallah,
post [9 Moo. Ind. App.], 303).
[See Jowala Buksh v. Dha.rwm Singh, 1866, 10 Moo. Ind. App. 511 ; Barlow v. Orde,
1870, 13 Moo. Ind. App. 308; Sri Gajapathi Radhika. Patta Maha Devi Garu
v. Sri Gajapathi N'ilamani Patta Maha Devi Garu, 1870, 13 Moo. Ind. App. 513;
Juttendromohun Tagore v. Ganendromohun Tagore, 1872, L.R. Ind. App. Sup.
vol. 56.]
4
[260) JUGGOMOHUN GHOSE,--.Appellant; KAISREECHUND,-Respondent*
[June 30, July 1, 1862].
On Appeal from the Supreme Court at Calcutta,
Neither by the English nor the Hindoo law, unless there be mercantile usage,
can interest be imported into a contract, which contains no stipulation to
that effect.
In an action on contract, known as Tajee mundee Chitties, opium wager con-
tracts (before the passing of the Act, No. XXI., of 1848, which prohibited
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-The Right Hon. Lord Kings-
down, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan.
Assessors,-The Right Hon. Sir Lawrence Peel, mnd the Right Hon. Sir James
W. Colvile.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0606&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)