MAH THEIN MYAH Vs. MOUNG THA HUYIN
Mah Thein Myah
Moung Tha Huyin
Click here to view full judgement.
HOBHOUSE, J. -
(1.) THE appellant in this case is the defendant below. The respondents are the representatives of the original plaintiff, who has died in the course
of the suit. His death has not in any way varied the matters of dispute
between the parties, who may for present purposes be conveniently styled
plaintiff and defendant throughout.
(2.) ON the 20th October, 1885, the plaintiff and defendant, who resided at Moulmein, made a written agreement to advance Rs. 1,10,000 for obtaining
4,445 logs of teak timber which was therein stated to be lying in the Mhineloongyee forests and to have been hypothecated and delivered by the
owner Moung Shoay Hpaw to the defendant as security for advances made by
him. The parties were to advance the amount and to bear further expenses
in the proportion of 3 shares to the plaintiff and 2 to the defendant,
and the proceeds were to be shared in the same proportion. In. the next
year the partners advanced Rs. 30,000 more to the mortgagor in the same
proportion. In point of fact the timber said to be delivered was in
Siamese territory at a great distance from Moulmein, and it had to be
dragged to and launched upon the River Salween, down which it must travel
some hundreds of miles before reaching Kado, where the loose logs could
be captured for their consignees.
In August, 1886, the mortgagor of the timber died, and the defendant was declared his administrator in the following October. After that it
was found that more money was wanted to recover the timber, and the
partners provided Rs. 20,000 in the stated proportions. In March, 1887,
the defendant required Rs. 10,000 more to meet expenses, and the
plaintiff declined to pay the two-fifths demanded of him. The defendant
alleged in his written statement that the partnership was then dissolved
by mutual consent.
(3.) IN 1896 the plaintiff brought this suit to take the accounts and to wind up the partnership. The preliminary question was whether it had been
dissolved in March 1887; and a separate issue was framed by the Judge of
Moulmein to try that question. The plaintiff denied that there was any
dissolution, or any abandonment by him of his interest in the concern,
and said that he did not advance the money demanded because the defendant
would not render any account of his dealings with the last advance. The
defendant said that on the plaintiff's refusal he considered the
partnership to be at an end; that the plaintiff gave no reason for
refusal; that he, the defendant, made no further demand, and gave no
notice to the plaintiff that the partnership was dissolved.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.