JONMENJOY COONDOO Vs. GEORGE ALDER WATSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent in this appeal, George Alder Watson, is a Surgeon-Major in Her Majesty's Indian Army, and the Appellant is a merchant at Calcutta. On or about the 18th of October, 1878, the Respondent deposited with Messrs. Nicholls & Co., described in the plaint as a firm carrying on business as bankers and financial agents in Calcutta, promissory notes of the Government of India, amounting to Rs. 37,500, for which a receipt was given to him by Nicholls & Co., headed " Safe custody receipt." One of those notes was for Rs. 20,000. This note was payable to Watson, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or his or their order, and was subsequently exchanged by Nicholls & Co. for a similar note, apparently that the interest might be received at Calcutta instead of Peshawar, where the interest on the former note was payable; but no question arises upon this.

(2.) ON the 18th of October, 1878, Watson executed and gave to Nicholls & Co. a power of attorney, in the following terms: Know all men by these presents, that I, George Alder Watson, Surgeon-Major, 19th Regiment Bengal Lancers, do make, constitute, and appoint William Nicholls and George Augustus Thompson, of Messrs. Nicholls & Co., financial agents, Calcutta, jointly and severally to be my true and lawful attorneys and attorney, for me and in my name, and on my behalf, from time to time to negotiate, make sale, dispose of, assign and transfer, or cause to be procured and assigned and transferred, at their or his discretion, all or any of the Government promissory notes, or other Government paper, bank shares, or shares in any public company, and other stocks, funds, and securities of any description whatsoever, now or hereafter standing in my name, or belonging to me, or any part or parts thereof respectively. And also for me, and in my name, and on my behalf, from time to time, at their or his discretion, to contract for, purchase, and accept the transfer into my name of any Government promissory notes or other Government paper, bank shares, or shares in any public company, and other stocks, funds, and securities of any description whatsoever, now or hereafter standing in the name or names of, or belonging to, any other person or persons. And also to receive all interest and dividends due, or to accrue due, on all or any of such stocks, funds, and securities. And for the purposes aforesaid, or any of them, to sign for me and in my name, and on my behalf, any and every contract or agreement, acceptance or other document. And to sign, seal, and deliver for me, and as my act and deed, any and every deed which they or he may think expedient.

(3.) IN December, 1880, a broker named Goberdhone, employed by Nicholls & Co., applied to the gomastah of the Appellant for a loan to Watson of Rs. 19,000 on the pledge of a Government security for Rs. 20,000, and subsequently brought the note for Rs. 20,000. Being asked by the gomastah under what authority the name of Watson was signed by Thompson, he said there were two seals on the paper, and from the two seals it appeared that Mr. Thompson had authority to draw interest and sell the paper, so he had full authority. The gomastah then sent the money by one Koylash Chunder Roy to the office of Nicholls & Co., telling him to inquire whether the paper was actually signed by Thompson. What then took place is stated by Koylash Chunder Boy thus:--"In the office the broker took the paper from Ameer Singh's durwan, and gave it to Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson gave that paper to me, and said he wanted money on that paper. I asked him if the signature on the paper was his signature, and if he had pledged the paper with Ameer Singh Shumar Midi. He said, 'Yes.' I told him 'The paper stands in the name of Mr. Watson, why do you want money on this paper, and what authority have you to sign for Mr. Watson?' Mr. Thompson said, 'I have got a power of attorney. If you wish to see the power of attorney I can show it to you.' He said he had a power of attorney from Watson to manage all his business, and he had authority to receive money on that paper. Then he executed a promissory note, in which he signed for Mr. Watson, gave the promissory note to me with the Government promissory note, and took the meney from me." In the account books of the Appellant the transaction was entered as a payment of Rs. 19,000, on account of pledge of company's paper. Nicholls and Co. having failed, the Respondent brought a suit in the High Court of Calcutta, praying that the Appellant might he decreed to indorse and deliver up the promissory note for Rs. 20,000 to him, and to pay him all such interest as the Appellant might have received thereon, and that the Appellant might, if necessary, be restrained from parting with it.