TMI Blog1887 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of the bond, i. e., the entire demand of the bond, shall have been paid. On the 5th November 1884, the amount of the bond not having been paid, the plaintiff brought a suit against Deoki Prasad for recovery of the amount due, and attached before judgment ten boxes of the indigo produce of the mauza mentioned in the bond, which were then in the hands of the police at the Dadri police station. The present defendant Bansidhar preferred objections to this attachment, alleging that the indigo had been sold to him by Deoki Prasad. Subsequently, how does not exactly appear, he got possession of the ten boxes, forwarded them to Calcutta, and realized by their sale ₹ 3,894-6-9. On the 7th of January 1885, the plaintiffs got a decree a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und by this finding of fact, unless there is absolutely no evidence to suppport it. The learned Counsel for the appellant did not emphasize his contention on this head by reference to the proofs on the record, but we have looked to see what they were, and after doing so we are not prepared to say that there were no circumstances in evidence which warranted the Judge in drawing the conclusion he did. It therefore must be taken as a fact found against the defendant that he appropriated and sold the ten boxes of indigo with notice and knowledge of the plaintiff's claim thereto. 2. Then arises the main point, the nature of which has already been stated, namely, whether the instrument of the 13th June 1884, created any valid security in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, prior thereto, handed over to the servant of the plaintiff, of which there undoubtedly is proof upon the record, so as to constitute a clear pledge, there was enough to create an equitable interest in the plaintiff in respect thereof. The equitable title so acquired by the plaintiff would no doubt in the absence of notice of that title not avail him against the defendant (see Joseph v. Lyons, L. R., 15 Q. B. D., 280, Hallas v. Bobinson, L. R., 15 Q. B. D., 288; but here the defendant is fixed with notice, and it is found that, despite such notice, he appropriated and sold the produce. The defendant therefore was in our opinion a wrongdoer and the plaintiff had a right to damages, as against him, the measure of which would, under ordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
