Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. The case is by no means free from difficulty. If the parties had been allowed to adduce all the evidence, the points arising for decision would have been more easily solved, but that has not been done.

2. I accept Mr. Venkata Subba Rows statement that the learned Judge heard evidence only on the question of limitation, and that the case was stopped after that. Mr. Marthandam Pillai said that he was not in a position to contradict the statement. The nature of the questions put to the solitary witness examined in the case, the state of the records and the judgment of the learned Judge support the statement made by the learned Vakil at the bar.

3. Now as to the facts. A firm known by the name of Salamangalam Murugappa Chetty. A. Venkataperumal Chetty & Co., carrying on business in Madras, acted as commission agents for the sale of the goods consigned by the defendants between September 1909 and May 1911. The Madras firm advanced money on the goods from time to time, for which they charged interest. They were also entitled to commission. The firm became practically insolvent about the beginning of 1911. By Exhibit A, the plaintiff in this case and four other