Abeyagoonesekera Et Al V. Mendis Et Al.,

Present  : Ennis J. and De Sampayo J.   1915.

ABEYAGOONESEKERA et al. v. MENDIS et al.

366-D. C. Kandy, 23,632.

Partnership action-Capital over Rs. 1,000-Agreement not in writing-May defendant in his answer admit the partnership, and raise the objection that the agreement it void for want of a written agreement ?

In a partnership action, the admission in his answer of the existence of the partnership by a defendant does not prevent him from setting up by way of defence the Ordinance of Frauds and Perjuries, where the agreement is not in writing and the capital of the partnership is over Rs. 1,000.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Bawa, K.C. (with him A. St. V. Jayewardene), for plaintiffs, appellants.

H. Fernando, for first and second defendants, respondents.

Schneider, for third defendant, respondent.

Bartholomeusz, for the fourth defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 9, 1915. DE SAMPAYO J.-

This is a partnership action. The plaint stated that the first plaintiff, the defendants, and two others named John Fernando and Don Juanis Appuhamy, had carried on business in partnership as toddy renters fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document