JUDGMENT

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. - This was an action brought by the plaintiffs for an account in respect of certain building transactions which were undertaken by the defendants for the plaintiffs, Mr. Hyam and Mr. Jones. Those building transactions were undertaken in pursuance of an agreement dated the 21st of January 1909. It is not necessary for me for the purpose of this case to deal in any detail with the terms of that agreement. It is sufficient for me to state that the defendants, the Bengal Stone Company, Ld., were to erect two sets of premises, one in Park Street, and the other in Bow Bazar Street, and that they were not to be liable to spend on all accounts more than a specified sum of money, and the method of payment was that "the owners (the plaintiffs in this case) should pay the Stone Company (the defendants) for all materials the actual cost price thereof plus all charges and expenses actually paid or incurred by the Stone Company in collecting and placing the same on site and also the actual cost of all labour employed by the contractors in or about the erections of the buildings and of completing and equipping the same in terms of the agreement." There were provisions for the remuneration of their services in respect of supervision and other matters, and then the payment of a sum equal to ten per cent, on the aggregate amount of all the items specified in the said clause of the agreement was provided for. The buildings were completed, although not within the specified time. There was also a provision in the agreement that a mortgage should be given by the owners of one of the premises to secure a sum of money which was eventually agreed upon Rs. 2,50,000.

2. Now, this action was brought, as I have said, primarily for an account. When it came on for trial, there were really two main questions, first, the point raised by the defendents, that there had been an account stated between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that consequently the plaintiffs were not entitled to an account; and, secondly, the point raised by the plaintiffs that a certain letter which was dated the 22nd of August 1911 was obtained from the plaintiffs by the coercion of the defendants. That was a letter in these terms:

In consideration of the Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., this day reconveying and releasing the premises Nos. 294 and 295, Bow Bazar Street, mortgaged by us to the Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., we hereby admit and acknowledge that the said reconveyance and release only relates to the said premises Nos. 294 and 295, Bow Bazar Street, and we hereby undertake to pay the said Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., not later than the 31stDecember 1911 any sum which may hereafter be found to be due from us to the said Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., under or in connection with the agreement dated the 21st January 1909 and made between the said Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., of the one part and ourselves of the other part. We hereby also agree to forego any and all claims that we may have had or have against you in respect of delays in completion of the buildings at Park Street and Bow Bazar Street and will only make such corrections in your bills and accounts as we may find to be erroneously or excessively charged. All other items of the contract agreement dated 2lst January 1909 to be considered as in force.

3. Now, those were the two main issues that were to be tried by the learned Judge, and I must say I am distressed to think that this action took no less than sixteen days in trial. In my view, it should have been obvious, unless the learned Judge was satisfied that there had been an account stated between the parties, that there must be a reference for the purpose of an account to be taken between the parties, and how the case which (with the exception of one or two subsidiary matters the facts relating to which lay in a small compass) was limited to these two questions, first, whether there had been an account stated, and secondly, whether the letter of the 22nd of Au