MANJAPPA Vs. RAJAGOPALACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs claim is first to be paid for six articles ordered by defendants, which the latter were, there had no right to return. Part of the cause of action as regards these articles arose at Kumbakonam, where plaintiffs complied with defendants order by despatching the articles to them, thus impliedly acceptingtheir proposal. The lower Court, therefore, had jurisdiction as regards this part of the case. There is no answer to it on the merits.

(2.) Next, however, plaintiffs claim the value of 17 other articles, which, it is not disputed, they sent in excess of defendants order, on the ground that they failed to-use the proper amount of care in the method by which they returned them to them at their request and that they consequently did not reach them.

(3.) It is argued, first, that the cause of action for this amount arose in part at Kumbakonam, where plaintiffs were, because it is based on a contract entered into between defendants and plaintiffs to return the articles and plaintiffs entered into that contract there. It is clear, however, that there wars no contract, defendants simply undertaking to return the articles at plaintiffs request made without reference to the passing of any consideration. The liability, if any, is in fact for damages for their alleged negligence; and that negligence took place, it is not denied, at Sagaram in My sore State. They must, therefore, be sued there.