KOTI VENKATARAMANIAH Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Commissioner dealt with this case on the footing that Barru Narasimha Row to whom the half-notes were sent was the agent of Mr. Ramaniah Pantulu who had the money in question in deposit with Messrs. Arbuth not and Company and who claims to be paid the amount in fall. The actual terms of the letter of August 8th, 1906, are not before us bat, it was not seriously contended on behalf of the appellant that the money was to be received by Mr. Narasimha Row in any other capacity than that of Mr. Ramaniah Pantalu's agent, and on his behalf, the case may, therefore, be considered as if the half notes had been sent by Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company direct to the customer.

(2.) The learned Commissioner in dealing with the case held (1) that on the authority of Smith V/s. Munde 29 L.J.Q. B. 172 that the property in the half notes had not passed and (2) that no question of appropriation or trust arose.

(3.) As regards the question whether the sending of the half notes operated as payment of the debt due by Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company to the customer, I think it is clear that the case is concluded by Smith V/s. Munde 29 L.J.Q.B. 172. I agree with the learned Commissioner that the facts that in Smith V/s. Munde 29 L.J.Q.B. 172 the party who sent the notes was not the debtor, and that his payment was a voluntary payment, made no difference.