HODGES Vs. DELHI AND LONDON BANK LIMITED
LAWS(PVC)-1900-7-33
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on July 21,1900

Hodges Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI AND LONDON BANK LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HOBHOUSE, J. - (1.) THE appellants in this case were defendants in the suit brought by the respondent bank. They had different defences, and their reasons in support of the appeal are different. For defendants so situated to join in a single appeal is an irregular proceeding and might easily result in inconvenient consequences. But they have been allowed to lodge separate cases, and their Lordships have heard them by separate counsel; and as matters turn out the misjoinder in appeal will not cause any embarrassment.
(2.) ON January 29,1886, three documents were executed for the purpose of securing a loan made by the bank to Colonel, then Major, Oldham of the 12th Native Infantry, then quartered at Lucknow. The first is an indenture made between Colonel Oldham of the first part, Katherine Hodges, widow, of Loodiana, and the defendant, Captain Craster, then a lieutenant in the same regiment of infantry, of the second part, and the bank of the third part. After reciting that Rs. 4500 had at the request of the other three parties been advanced by the bank to Oldham upon an agreement for repayment as thereinafter provided, it is witnessed that the three parties jointly and severally covenant with the bank that Oldham shall pay the principal and interest and the premiums on a life policy by monthly instalments of Rs. 300, beginning on March 10 next; the whole amount to be recoverable on failure to pay any instalment. The last clause of the deed runs as follows: And it is hereby also agreed and declared, that although as between the said Arthur Oldham and the said K. Hodges and J.C.B. Craster, the said K. Hodges and J.C.B. Craster are to be considered as sureties only for the said Arthur Oldham, yet as between the said K. Hodges, J.C.B. Craster, and the said bank, the said K. Hodges and J.C.B. Craster are to be considered as principal debtors to the said bank, so that the said K. Hodges and J.C.B. Craster, their heirs, executors or administrators, or either of them, shall not be discharged or exonerated by any dealings between the said Arthur Oldham, his heirs, executors or administrators, and the said bank, whereby the said K. Hodges and J.C.B. Craster as sureties only for the said Arthur Oldham would have been so discharged or exonerated. The second of the three documents is a letter written by Mrs. Hodges to the bank. It states that she hands to the bank certain certificates for shares in other banks with a power of attorney to enable the bank to sell them. In the event of her loan account with the bank (joint and several with Oldham and Craster) becoming out of order by infringement of any of the conditions of the bond securing it, the bank may sell for the credit of the loan account. The third document is the power of attorney mentioned in the letter.
(3.) ON June 8, 1886, Mrs. Hodges died, and the appellant Robert Hodges is her administrator. In September, 1886, Colonel Oldham failed to pay the instalment due to the bank. He applied for delay, but was informed by the bank that it could not be granted without the consent of his sureties. Craster consented to a delay of four months, but no consent could be given on the part of Mrs. Hodges' estate, to which no representative had then been appointed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.