| dc.description.abstract | This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 Excerpt: ...v. Behari (2). Where a person deposited money with a banker and drew on it, and sometimes the balance was in her favor and sometimes against her, and the banker rendered monthly accounts showing balance due,--held, suit did not fall under article.--Hajee v. Mussamat Ashrnjoonnissa (3). Suit, where there was an account between principal and Gent with mutual items of credit and debit, and a stipulation that! the principal, on adjustment of accounts, should pay the balance due for such balance.--Watson v. Aga Mehdee (4). Suit for balance due on 'Hindi' transactions in which at first the account fluctuated, sometimes being in favor of the plaintiff and sometimes of defendant, though subsequently always in favor of plaintiff.--Narrandass v. Vissandass (5). Description of Suit. Period of limitation. | en_US |
