1913 Present: Wood Renton A.C.J. and De Sampayo A.J.

WIDYASEKERA v. DIAS.

305-D. C. Colombo, 35,897.

Proctor-Proxy authorizing proctor to obtain injunction-Proctor obtains mandate of sequestration by mistake-Writ of injunction ordered by Court-Mistake of chief clerk and proctor-Client not liable in damages.

The defendant by his proxy authorized his proctor to sue the plaintiff for rent, to obtain an injunction restraining him from disposing of or removing his property, and also to "file all necessary papers and to take all steps necessary in the premises." The. injunction was granted by Court, but the proctor prepared by mistake a mandate of sequestration, instead of a writ of injunction, and obtained the signature of the chief clerk and forwarded it to the Fiscal. The plaintiff brought this action for damages for wrongful sequestration.

Held, that the defendant was not liable, as his proxy had expressly limited his proctor's authority.

THE facts are fully set out in the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, appellant.

R. L. Pereira, for the defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 27, 1913. WOOD RENTON A.C.J.-