PEACOCK Vs. BYJNAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE suits form part of a group of seven suits instituted for the purpose of deciding questions arising out of the failure of Caralambus Tambaci, who carried on business under the firm of Paul Tambaci & Son. The suits were disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta simultaneously upon evidence and arguments common to the whole. The decrees have not been challenged in appeal except so far as they are adverse to the interests of Messrs. Peacock, Mollison & Co., who are in effect the Appellants in both the suits now the subject of these appeals.

(2.) THE facts of the case have been so fully, accurately, and luminously stated in the judgment of the High Court, and, as stated there, have been so entirely relied on by the counsel, and so repeatedly referred to during several days of argument, that their Lordships do not find it necessary to make any fresh preliminary statement, but will refer to the material facts as and when they are required to explain the conclusions arrived at.

(3.) THE High Court rightly states that there is no rule of law giving a lien to a banian, neither is there any custom to that effect. If he claims one, he must prove it either by showing some express agreement, written or verbal, that he shall have a lien, or some course of dealing from which it must be implied. The banian relies on both these methods of proof, but he does not allege that there was any written agreement.