Lord Atkinson. -

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of appeal of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, dated the 22nd September 1924, dismissing the appeal of the defen dants in two consolidated suits against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, dated the 26th May 1924.

The principal questions in this appeal are whether the respondents (the plain tiffs in the consolidated suits,) are pre cluded from recovering judgment in the second suit (viz., Suit 1923, No. 5?0) by reason of the judgment recovered by them in the first suit (viz. Suit 1923, No. 120) and whether, there was jurisdiction in the consolidated suits to set aside the judgment in the first suit (viz., Suit 1923, No. 120).

The appellants and the respondents are money-lenders carrying on business in Penang ; the respondents (plaintiffs) un der the vellasam or mark of M. R. M. V. L. and the appellants (defendants) under that of R. M. K. R. M. The defendant firm is owned by one Rameswamy Chetty, of Palavangudy, Ramnad District, Southern India. It is the practice for such firms to carry on their business through an attorney and agent and to describe and style the firm by its vellasam or mark coupled with the name of its Penang agent for the time being. Subramanian Chetty was at all material times the attorney and agent of the plaintiff firm and A. N. S. Somasundaram Chetty the attorney and agent of the defendant firm.

The relation in which these attorneys or agents, when engaged in a money-lending business, stood to their princi pals, whether the latter were individuals or firms, their functions and powers, are well and authoritatively described by Mr. Justice Berrett-Lennard in his judg ment delivered in this case in the Court of appeal on the 22nd September 1924. He said :

First, when a local representative of a Chetty firm carries on the business under the vellasam (i. e., the letters) of the firm coupled with his own distinct name, the announcement to the ex ternal world in general is that, whether a co partner with, or a mere agent of, other persons, he is to be looked upon as a principal. It is to be noted that the vellasam of a firm is not its full style. Next, a local representative of the type described does not label himself as simply an agent. He regularly sues as a principal on mortgage deeds, bills of sale and promissory notes. The title of his co-partners or principals to immovables granted in form to him is never abstracted or otherwise shown on the occasion of any sale or qualified disposition. The rights of his principals or co-partners are in truth behind the curtain, much to the disadvantage of the Government.

Mr. Jowitt contended, in the clear and forcible argument he addressed to the Board on behalf of the appellants, that in reality in the money-lending business in Penang, the vellasam of a firm coupled with the name of a local representative, whether in fact partner, attorney or agent, merely meant to inform the pub lic that this named person was then conducting the business of the local branch of the firm.

On the 27th February 1923, a writ of sommons was issued in a cause (Suit 1923, No. 120) at the suit of M. R. V. L. Subramanian Chetty against R. M. K. R. M. Somasundaram Chetty, claiming a sum of $ 7,40,000 described as "balance principal of current account," and, interest from the 28th August 1922, to the 27th February 1923, at $ 125 per $ 100 per men sem as per Chetty's current account.

The writ was served personally on Somasundaram Chetty, who, on the 14th March 1923, entered an appearance in person not by solicitor running thus :

Enter appearance for R. M. K. R. M. Somasundaram Chetty.......................................... Signed R. M. K. R. M. Somasundnram Chetty, defendant.

On the 19th March 1923, a summons was taken out by G. E. Wright Motion, solicitor for the plaintiff, addressed to R. M. K. R. M. Somasundaram Chetty, requiring the latter to appear before the Registrar in Chambers on Friday, the 23r