MAH THEIN MYAH Vs. MOUNG THA HUYIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case is the defendant below. The respondents are the representatives of the original plaintiff, who has died in the course of the suit. His death has not in any way varied the matters of dispute between the parties, who may for present purposes be conveniently styled plaintiff and defendant throughout.

(2.) ON the 20th October, 1885, the plaintiff and defendant, who resided at Moulmein, made a written agreement to advance Rs. 1,10,000 for obtaining 4,445 logs of teak timber which was therein stated to be lying in the Mhineloongyee forests and to have been hypothecated and delivered by the owner Moung Shoay Hpaw to the defendant as security for advances made by him. The parties were to advance the amount and to bear further expenses in the proportion of 3 shares to the plaintiff and 2 to the defendant, and the proceeds were to be shared in the same proportion. In. the next year the partners advanced Rs. 30,000 more to the mortgagor in the same proportion. In point of fact the timber said to be delivered was in Siamese territory at a great distance from Moulmein, and it had to be dragged to and launched upon the River Salween, down which it must travel some hundreds of miles before reaching Kado, where the loose logs could be captured for their consignees.

(3.) IN 1896 the plaintiff brought this suit to take the accounts and to wind up the partnership. The preliminary question was whether it had been dissolved in March 1887; and a separate issue was framed by the Judge of Moulmein to try that question. The plaintiff denied that there was any dissolution, or any abandonment by him of his interest in the concern, and said that he did not advance the money demanded because the defendant would not render any account of his dealings with the last advance. The defendant said that on the plaintiff's refusal he considered the partnership to be at an end; that the plaintiff gave no reason for refusal; that he, the defendant, made no further demand, and gave no notice to the plaintiff that the partnership was dissolved.