1. This appeal raises a very interesting point of law and one which, despite very numerous decisions, urges one to attend to the prayer of Ajax quoted by Lord Dunedin in Sorrell v. Smith, 1925 AC 700, at least say something clear to help in the future Clarity demands that, as a first step, the essential facts be stated. A number of persons, now represented by the appellants and respondents, were in partnership in 1925. The partners, not as partners in that firm, but as separate persons, executed an agreement (hereafter referred to as a licence its being a licence to enter a forest, cut trees and carry away timber) dated 30th August 1925 which gave them the right to cut wood in a certain forest on certain terms. The proprietor of the forest also executed that licence on that date. By an undated order the Deputy Commissioner gave leave to the proprietor to lease the forest under certain stated conditions. This was admittedly after the above licence had been granted. A new agreement by way of lease was drawn up in accordance with the conditions imposed but the partners who, through their servants and agents, had commenced the work of felling declined to execute the lease which