LEON SAUBOLLE Vs. KVSEYNE AND BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit sues to recover from the defendants a new "Art Caxton" Platen Machine Model "E" No. 102 or in default a sum of Rs. 2,100 and Rs. 300 as damages and also a sum of Rs. 50, being the balance due under the agreement scheduled to the plaint. The 1st defendants do not appear to defend the suit although they were duly served. By an agreement in writing, dated the 9th August 1913 and made between Leon Saubolle & Co. (therein called the owners) of the one part and the 1st defendants (therein called the hirers) of the other part, it was agreed (inter alia) as follows: (1) the owners agreed to let on hire and the hirer agreed to take from the owners the machinery in suit, (2) the owners acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 300 for the option of purchase thereinafter contained, credit to be given to the hirer for this Bum if the hirer exercised such option, the sum otherwise to belong absolutely to the owners, (3) the birer agreed, so long as he thought tit to continue the hiring, to pay to the owners at Calcutta the sum of Rs. 300 without demand against delivery and Rs, 150 per month commencing from the date of delivery, (6) the hirer agreed with the owners that during the hiring (6) the machinery should be kept in the possession of the hirer and upon trust for the owners at his address and that on no account it should be sold, assigned or dealt with, or the possession thereof parted with, (9) that if the birer (a) should make default in punctually paying any hire or instalment or (e) should fail to observe and perform any of the agreements and conditions contained therein and on his part to be observed and performed, then and in any such case it should be lawful for the owners to immediately put an end to the hiring and enter upon the premises in which the machinery might be for the time being, and to seize and take away the same, (11) that no allowance return credit or payment should be allowed or paid to the hirer in the event of the hiring being determined by the owners or the hirer as provided by Clause 9, but that the hirer should pay to the owners at Calcutta all arrears of hire, interest and damages for the breach of the agreement up to the date of such determination, (12) that the owners agreed that the hirer should have the option of purchasing the machinery at any time during the hiring by paying the sum of Rs, 2,100 only and that if the hirer should exercise such option they would give the hirer credit against such purchase price for all payments which should have been made by, him for hire, (13) that if the owners should grant to the hirer any time or indulgence, the same should not affect or prejudice the rights of the owners under the agreement.

(2.) The agreement appears to me to be an ordinary agreement of hire-purchase, with the result that the property in the goods remained in the owners until the option to purchase was exercised.

(3.) On the 2nd December 1914 the 1st defendants pledged the machine to the 2nd defendants for valuable consideration and the 2nd defendants took possession of the machine on that date. It is not disputed that the 2nd defendants acted in good faith and that there were no circumstances to raise any reasonable presumption that the 1st defendants were acting improperly.