Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the advance paid by him in respect of a yarn contract. The contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is sought to be made liable on the ground that he guaranteed the performance of the contract by the 1st defendant and also on the ground that he was guilty of some fraud which would fix him with responsibility. The 3rd defendant is the agent of the 2nd defendant and for the purpose of this appeal it is unnecessary to make any distinction between the 2nd and 3rd defendants as it is not disputed that the 3rd defendant acted for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant.

2. The facts are simple, although the judgment of the lower Court has given them the appearance of great complexity.

3. Ramalinga Mudaliar and Sons agreed to sell the 2nd defendant 50 bales of Madura yarn of 24 counts. The 2nd defendant agreed to assign this contract in favour of the 1st defendant. The consideration for the assignment was Rs. 600. This transaction is evidenced by Ex. I, dated 9th August 1918. For this sum of Rs. 600 the 1st defendant execut