had the same rights as a private
individual in declining to employ
the tug if the charges were too
high. [Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt]

103

2. K. being in urgent want of money
entered into an agreement in
writing with N., acting as the
agent of F., for an advance of
Rs. 19,000. The agreement re-
cited that N. had undertaken to
procure this amount from F.,
on
his return, he being then absent
from the place where the agreement
was executed, and K. promised, in
consideration of the loan, to grant
N. a lease of his Zemindary, and
it was provided that K. should, on
F.'s arrival, execute a regular deed.
N. could only accommodate K. with
a part of the proposed loan, and as
the matter was urgent, and F.'s
return was expected to be within a
few days, it was verbally agreed,
that the remaining portion of the
loan should be advanced within
eight days. F. did not return till
nineteen days after, when he was
willing to make the advance re-
quired; but in the interim, and
after fifteen days from the date
of the agreement, K., from pres-
sure for money had been obliged
to get the advance from another
party, and had, thereupon, granted
him a lease of his Zemindary. N.
then brought a suit for specific
performance of the agreement. He
afterwards died, when his heir as-
signed N.'s interest under the
agreement to F., who thereupon

brought an action against K. for
breach of contract. The Civil
Court awarded damages for the
breach, but, upon appeal, the
Sudder Court dismissed the suit,
on the ground that the assignment
by N.'s heir to F. was void for
champerty.

Held that as N. was only the agent
of F., the party really interested
in the performance of the agree-
ment, the assignment by his heir
of his interest under the agree-
ment, for the purpose of enabling
F. to bring the suit, was
champerty or maintenance, as it
was wholly unnecessary, as F. was
suing in respect of his own interest
for a breach of contract.

not

CHAMPERTY AND MAINTE-

NANCE.

By the English law, to maintain an
action for champerty or mainte-
nance, it is necessary to establish
that the transaction was against
good policy and justice, or tending
to promote unnecessary litigation.
[Fischer v. Kamala Naicker] 170

See" ACTION," 2.

CHARTER.

See" APPEALABLE VALUE," 1.

COMPROMISE.

1. In a Ruffanamah, or deed of com-
promise, of a suit between three
sons, members of a Hindoo family,
respecting the distribution of their
father's estate, it was stipulated,
that all "ancestral" property
should be equally divided into
four shares. Held, that the sense
in which the word "ancestral "
was employed was not confined to
such property as the father had
derived from his ancestors, but in-
cluded "paternal" property, or
such as had been acquired by the
father by whatever title, and was
posesssed by him at the time of
his decease.

A decree of an appellate Court in

India, obtained after a compro-
mise, held, in the circumstances,
fraudulent, and set aside with

2. Pending the execution of decrees
in suits between A., lessee, and
B., under-lessee, for the balance of
rent, C. purchased B.'s interest in
the under-lease. For the protec-
tion of the property suits were
then brought by C. against A. An
Ikrarnamah, or agreement, was
afterwards entered into by A. and
C., to put an end to the litigation.
This agreement recited that C.
was indebted to A. in a certain
sum which C. agreed to pay, upon
a remission by A. of part of his
claim, by two instalments at speci-
fied dates; and the agreement
then provided that, if default was
made by C. in paying the instal-
ments, then that the remitted
money was to be held due to A.
by C., and secured upon certain
property comprised in the under-
lease, as well as by making C.
himself liable. No place was spe-
cified, nor was there any custom
established by the evidence, where
the money was to be paid. The
instalments were paid, but not
until some time after the days
specified in the agreement. The
money had been tendered to A.'s
Mookhtar, but refused by him
from the fact of A. being absent,
and also on the ground that in-
terest was not tendered. A. after-
wards brought an action against
B. and C. to recover the sum re-
mitted by the Ikrarnamah, on the
ground that by the conditions of