PROFULLA KUMAR BOSEMINORS, BY THEIR MOTHER, NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, HEMANGINI BASU Vs. KAMINI KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the defendant No. 1 employed the defendant No. 2 to take delivery of a parcel of jute which he had dispatched to the Chitpur station of the East Indian Railway. The jute was consigned by the defendant No. 1 to himself, so that the railway receipt was made out in his name as consignee. Without endorsing the receipt he entrusted it to the defendant No. 2 for the purpose of obtaining delivery. The defendant No. 2, therefore, had implied authority to do all that was necessary for that purpose, including authority to endorse the receipt in the name of the defendant No. 1.

(2.) What happened was that the defendant No, 2 took the receipt to the plaintiffs, and representing himself to be the partner of the defendant No. 1, asked for a loan for which he offered the receipt as a, pledge. The plaintiffs requested him to get the receipt endorsed by the consignee. Two days later the defendant No. 2 again presented the receipt to the plaintiffs with an endorsement upon it purporting to be signed by the defendant No. 1 and to authorize delivery- to Nanda Lal Dutt, the servant of the plaintiffs, The endorsement including the signature was in fact written by the defendant No. 2.

(3.) The plaintiffs then took delivery and on the security of the goods paid the defendant No. 2 Rs. 1,011 by way of loan together with Rs. 30 for the railway freight. He fraudulently appropriated the money for his own purposes.