(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought on a contract No. 3525 of the 6th of November 1907 for the sale by the defendants of a lac of gunny-bags of the sort described in the sold- note. The terms of the contract are set out in the sold-note, and it there appears, among other things, that the price was Rs. 30-4 per 100 bags free alongside, and that delivery of the goods was to be given and taken 20,080 monthly, from December 1907 to April 1908. That contract is signed by the plaintiffs as brokers; it purports to be addressed to the principals. The instalments of December and January were settled, and no question arises regarding them, except as to brokerage, as to which nothing has been said before us. The February instalment was not delivered; and according to the plaint, damage to the extent of Rs. 972-14-3 was thereby sustained by the plaintiffs and became due to them. The total sum claimed in this suit is thus Rs. 1,031-9. The case was instituted in the Presidency Small Cause Court, but was transferred to the High Court, and came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Harington, who has passed a decree in the plaintiffs favour. From his judgment the present appeal is preferred.
(2.) It is not denied that the defendants entered into a contract in the terms of the sold-note; but it has throughout been denied that the defendants entered into such a contract as is alleged, that is to say, a contract as is set forth in the plaint, which represents, the plaintiffs as vendors to the purchasers. When the case came beforfe Mr. Justice Harington, the following issues were raised: (i) Did the defendants enter into the contract stated in the plaint? (ii) Did the plaintiffs contract for an undisclosed principal or for themselves? (iii) Were the plaintiffs ready and willing to deliver?
(3.) Objection was taken to the third issue, but not to either of the other two--no objection could be taken to either of them, because they embodied and amplified that which was set forth in the written statement from the very commencement.