in the process of putting the goods into that shape there used to be necessity for the defendants to cut and trim the pieces and sometimes call on the plaintiff for replacement of the pieces which fell below the standard.
the high companyrt also held that the plaintiff was liable to pay to the defendants the amount claimed by them by way of companynter claim.
157/ .
the plaintiff accordingly prayed that an account should be taken of the dealings between the parties for the period in question.
126379/7/2 payable by him and that against the balance they were holding certain goods belonging to the plaintiff and asking him to companyfirm the statements.
the case of the respondent was that he entered into an agreement with the appellant to act as agents for shipping the goods hides and skins to united kingdom and for finding purchasers there.
for every shipment a contract numbere was being sent by the defendants to the plaintiff.
the goods would be shipped to the defendants london office where they were sold to london purchasers.
ram reddy and a. v. velayudhan nair for the appellant.
the seller is said to be liable to pay brokerage at the rate of one pie per lb.
by its judgment dated december 15 1959 the high companyrt reversed the decision of the trial judge and held that the defendants acted as del credere agents of the plaintiff for effecting the sale of the plaintiffs goods in the united kingdom.
56564/and odd as due to him as balance of the price of the goods and a further sum of rs.
thereafter the defendants used to re pack them into bales each weighing 600 pounds and then ship the goods themselves as shippers and obtain the necessary shipping documents on the basis of c.i.f.
4351 and odd was due to it from the plaintiff and it prayed for a decree against the plaintiff for that amount by way of companynter claim.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated december 15 1959 of the madras high companyrt in o.s.
d 4 on june 22 1949 and sent it to the defendants companyfirming the companyrectness of the balance as due by him and also companyfirming the stock of his goods remaining with the defendants.
in all there were 101 contract forms and several statements of accounts sent to the plaintiff in respect of the shippers.
to numbere of those contracts or statements of account did the plaintiff raise any objection at any time.
the defendants also companytended that a sum of rs.
the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the high companyrt of madras under the letters patent.
the price of the goods was calculated at the price fixed in the companytract numberes and after deducting the expenses and the advances with interest thereon the balance if any was paid to the plaintiff either by cheque or by credit being given in his accounts.
on this basis the high companyrt decreed the plaintiffs suit and directed the taking of accounts as prayed for from the defendants though in respect of some of the items the claim of the plaintiff was negatived.
the respondent was a trader at madras in hides and skins.
companytracts.
on receipt of this statement the plaintiff signed the memorandum ex.
for the period of 8 months commencing from january 1949 there were as many as 101 contracts entered into between the appellant and the respondent.
d 5 en closing a statement of account ex.
the plaintiff tentatively claimed a sum of rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 164 of 1964.
40275/ as representing the loss sustained by him by reason of the defendants companyduct in number shipping his goods under the shaik mark.
then the bales would be delivered into the defendants godown where the bales would be opened and re assorted so as to companyform to london specification and standard.
p 17 showing the said balance of rs.
after the goods were shipped and as soon as the shipping documents were got ready.
the trial judge accordingly dismissed the suit and decreed that companynter claim of the defendants after deducting the said sum of rs.
157/ in respect of the marine insurance alone was sustainable.
r. chaudhuri and k. rajendra choudhury for the respondent.
so also a statement of account with a companyering letter as well as a cheque for the balance found due to the plaintiff were being sent to the plaintiff from time to time.
on june 22 1949 the defendants again wrote a letter ex.
p 16 to the plaintiff stating that there was a balance of rs.
the case of the defendants was that there was an outright purchase of the goods from the plaintiff for the purpose of resale in the united kingdom.
the trial judge came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff was bound by the statements of account rendered by the defendants from time to time.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. this appeal is brought against the judgment of the high companyrt of madras dated december 15 1959 in o.s.
the respondent will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellant as the defendants.
the trial judge held by his judgment dated may 6 1954 that the defendants were only purchasers of the goods from the plaintiff and the idea of agency was quite inconsistent with the nature of the transactions between the parties.
126379/7/2 and asking the plaintiff for confirmation.
appeal number 22 of 1955.
it is alleged that the appellant used to make payment to the respondent in respect of the goods sent to it for shipment in the nature of advances and he used to set off these advances when payment was made to the respondent after the goods were shipped.
all the expenses incurred in companynection with the goods prior to shipment such as carriage trimming and assortment in the defendants godown were all to be borne by the plaintiffs.
were all to be home by the plaintiff.
after giving an opportunity to the parties to produce further evidence the trial judge held that since there was numberfraud the accounts companyld number be reopened and the claim of the plaintiff with regard to rs.
shaik or s. m. a. mark.
on june 20 1949 the defendants wrote a letter ex.
the appellant was a firm gordon woodroffe and companypany madras limited doing business among other things as exporters of hides and skins.
the defendants companytested the suit on the ground that it was number an agent of the plaintiff but it purchased hides from the plaintiff for export and for resale in the united kingdom.
appeal number 22 of 1955.
so also expense in companynection with the shipment such as freight insurance short weight etc.
