9911796707
TMI Blog1915 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dants Nos. 1 to 6 with a corresponding obligation on them to pay certain rents and revenues while in possession to the uralans (Exhibit A). In this state of things, the ninth defendant, who appears for some reason to have been on bad terms with his fellow uralans, brought a suit against them, obtained a decree, and attached in execution the moveables of the temple, including the vessels and jewels necessary for the performance of the daily worship. It thereupon became an urgent matter to free the vessels and jewels, and the plaintiff came forward with the requisite funds. Meetings of the uralans were held which the ninth defendant though summoned refused to attend, and it was argued that the plaintiff should be reimbursed by making over to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low is most cursory and unsatisfactory; however both Courts have found that the payment was made; that is a finding of fact in support of which there was no doubt some evidence, and we must accept it here; that being so, two k questions only arise for our decision. First, was Exhibit B a valid document or was it vitiated by the fact that only four of the five contracting trustees executed it? and secondly, was the payment evidenced by Exhibit I a good discharge to the defendants from the plaintiff's claim? At one time a third point was suggested, viz., that Exhibit B only effected an assignment of an actionable claim; but this was not seriously pressed, and is at once refuted by an examination of the documents. As to the first point, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same effect as if he had also taken part (Exhibit C1). Another equally urgent notice in similar terms was sent to the ninth defendant on the 9th April (Exhibit C2). As he did not answer these communications the document was executed by the other four trustees on the 24th April and handed to the plaintiff, who 3 thereupon paid the money in satisfaction of the decree. The ' Judges below have been misled by an answer in the plaintiff's cross-examination, which appears in the deposition as follows: The intention when Exhibit B was written was that ninth defendant should also execute it. That is doubtless perfectly true; but the learned Judges have overlooked the fact that more than a month elapsed between the writing of the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to give an interpretation of the section. It runs as follows: Any trustees or trustee may give a receipt in writing for any money, securities or other moveable property payable, transferable or deliverable to them or him by reason or in the exercise, of any trust or power; and, in the absence of fraud, such receipt shall discharge the person paying, transferring or delivering the same therefrom, and from seeing to the application thereof, or being accountable for any loss or misapplication thereof. 3. It will be noticed from the report of the Bombay case that the learned Judges quote the section us beginning any trustee may, whereas the words are any trustees or trustee may. They proceed to interpret the section as meani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
