emblements, when a lease of uncertain duration determines by any means except the fault of the lessee, he or his legal representative is entitled to all the crops planted or sown by the lessee and growing upon the property when the lease determines, and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them. As to the lessee's power to assign, he may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest, but he does not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of his liabilities under the lease. The lessor must disclose any material defect in the property with reference to its intended use of which he is, and the lessee is not, aware, and which the lessee could not with ordinary care discover. All these rules are subject to any special contract or local usage to the contrary. 3. Marriage. The bulk of the population of India do not regard marriage as a contract at all, and even in the case of Christians, marriage effects a change of status and is not a contract such as those we are now considering, which only create obligations between the parties. It should indeed be dealt with as part of the law of Persons rather than as a branch of the law of Contract. But a promise to marry comes within the domain of Contract, and the suit for breach of that promise is cognizable by most of the Indian courts'. He who promises marriage also warrants that he is legally capable of marrying the promisee, and is therefore not the less liable for a breach of promise though it may be questionable whether the actual promise to marry was not unlawful 2. As to the damages recoverable in this suit, see above, p. 506. Suits for specific performance of marriage will not lie3: nor will the father of a Hindú girl be desired to perform the marriage of his daughter with the person to whom she is betrothed 3. When A, a Hindú, in consideration of Rs. 100 paid to him by B, promised to give his minor daughter in marriage to B, and failed to perform his promise, the High Court held that B might sue A to recover the money. Quare whether A could have sued B for payment of the Rs. 100 ? Not by the Presidency Small Cause Courts, Act XV of 1882, sec. 19, cl. (g). 2 Millward v. Littlewood, 5 Ex. 775, where the promisor was married at the time of his promise. VOL. I. Ll 3 7 Bom. H. C. O. C. 122. 4 10 Cal. 1054, following 14 W. R. 154. Otherwise in England, where such a transaction would be marriagebrocage, Keat v. Allen, 2 Vern. Part 2, 588. Caretaking. 4. The Creation of a Trust. A trust is defined as an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner1. Here we have to deal only with the contracts to create a trust, which are made when a person agrees for valuable consideration and for the benefit of certain persons to settle specific property. In such cases he becomes a trustee of the property for the intended objects. So where he contracts to charge all lands that he may possess at a particular time or at any time he will be a trustee of such lands to the extent of the charge. And even if a person engage on his marriage to settle all the money and other moveable property that he may acquire during the coverture, the trusts upon which it is so agreed that the property shall be settled will fasten upon it as it falls into possession, and if the money has been laid out in purchase of land it may be followed into such land. But if a person contract to settle such property as he shall die possessed of, he may dispose of his property as he pleases during his lifetime and the covenant will affect only such property as he may leave after payment of his just debts; and if a person contract to secure an annuity either by a charge on land, or by investment in Government securities, or by the best means in his power, this does not create a charge on his property generally 3. 5. Service. The more important contracts for services are, according to Prof. Holland, (a) for caretaking; (b) for doing work on materials; (c) for carriage; (d) for professional services; (e) for domestic services; (ƒ) for agency; (g) for partnership. (a) Caretaking. This is either gratuitous or for reward. The former is called deposit, and the only statutory provision relating to it is the article in the Limitation Act as to suits against depositaries. Caretaking for reward is exercised by bankers, warehousemen, wharfingers, the 'cloak-rooms' of railway companies, liverystable-keepers, and inn-keepers. Bankers and wharfingers have a general lien; and in Bombay an innkeeper has been held liable for theft of an article stolen from his hotel ". 1 Act II of 1882, sec. 3; see infra. 3 Lewin, 141. 4 Contract Act, sec. 171. 5 3 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 137, where it was said that in Bombay there is no materials. (6) Doing work on materials. Where the bailee has, in accord- Working on ance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a lien on the goods till he has been paid for his trouble 1. (c) Carriage. A contract of carriage may relate to conveyance Carriage. by land or by inland navigation,' or by sea, and to goods or to passengers. The liability of common carriers by land or inland navigation for loss in case of certain goods is defined by Act III of 1865, sec. 3; as to the similar liability of Railway Companies, see Act IV of 1879, sec. 102. As to the right of a bailee for carriage, see Act IX of 1872, sec. 158. Special rules as regards carriers by Tramway are contained in Act III of 1865, sec. 7, and Act XI of 1886, sec. 16. So far as the provisions of these Acts do not apply, carriers are governed by the English Common Law 3. In cases of sale, delivery to a common carrier, or to a carrier designated by the buyer, for the purpose of being conveyed to him or according to his directions, has the same effect as delivery to the buyer *. But so long as goods, though delivered to a common carrier appointed by the consignee, remain at the risk of the consignor, they are not delivered to the consignee ". As to the liability of persons sending goods of a dangerous nature by carrier, see 1 All. 60. That a carrier is bound to deliver within a reasonable time; as to the compensation recoverable from him on account of delay; and that he is entitled to a lien for his freight and charges, see 2 Agra, 132. That a Railway Company must keep goods which have reached the station of their destination ready there for delivery till the consignee in the exercise of due diligence can call for and remove them, see 3 Bom. 96. The carriage of goods by sea is usually regulated by special contracts between the ship-owner and the freighter or shipper called charter-party' and 'bill of lading,' by which the owner is generally relieved from liability for the act of God, the Queen's enemies, fire and sea-risks. Decisions of the Indian Courts on charter-parties will be found in 6 Ben. Appx. 20; 8 Ben. 340, 544; 2 Mad. H. C. 88; and 7 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 144. As to law but the common law of England to regulate the relation of innkeeper and guest in a case between a European and a Parsí. There is nothing in India like 26 & 27 Vic. c. 41. 1 Contract Act, sec. 170. 2 10 Cal. 210. 9 10 Cal. 166, dissenting from the de- 5 I Mad. H. C. 200. 'Charter-party' is defined and Professional service. bills of lading, see 3 Mad. 107; 4 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 169; 6 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 71; and 7 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 186. The Indian Government, like the Postmaster-General in England, is exempt from liability for loss of or damage to anything intrusted to the Post Office for conveyance1. (d) Professional service. A professional man employed for reward (locator operarum) is held in England to guarantee that he is reasonably skilful and competent, and can recover nothing for unskilful work. The two chief professions in India are the legal and the medical. In India, as in England, a barrister who is also an enrolled advocate is incapable of making a contract or suing for his fees. But it has been held that a suit will lie against a barrister, not being an advocate, for failing to appear in a sessions Pleaders in Madras, and probably elsewhere, are prohibited by an order of court from enforcing agreements for remuneration on condition of success 5. The Indian Courts look unfavourably on agreements to pay a pleader with a share of the spoil. But that an agreement to pay a vakíl in the event of success a certain sum in addition to his full fees, if made contemporaneously with the vakálatnáma, is not void as being nudum pactum, see 8 Bom. 413 otherwise when the agreement was subsequent to the acceptance of the vakálatnáma, 2 Bom. 362. That a vakil has no implied power to compromise a suit, see 2 Mad. H. C. 423, and 2 Agra 222, following Swinfen v. Swinfen. That the contract implied from the employment by an insolvent's trustees of an attorney to carry on a suit already commenced by the insolvent as plaintiff, in which the attorney was retained for him in a contract to pay only future costs, 5 Bom. H. C., O. C. J. 163. As regards medical men, there is no law in India like the English Medical Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vic. c. 90). But there is no presumption such as formerly existed in England, that a physician's services were honorary. Questions have often arisen as to the amount payable for attendance. The gold mohur in India generally represents the professional guinea in England; and in one case the High Court of the N. W. Provinces accepted the opinion of an the stamp duty (one rupee) on that 1 I Mad. H. C. 200. Holland, ch. xii, citing Grill v. 3 N. W. P. 83; 6 N. W. P. 43; 3 Mad. 140. The decision in Ken nedy v. Brown, 13 C. B., N. S. 677, 4 Compare the Attorneys Act, 1870, sec. II. experienced medical officer that in the case of a public servant six days' salary, or one-fifth of the [monthly] income, is the proper amount of a remuneration for a year's attendance on his family, when there has not been an extraordinary sickness or an accouchement 1. (e) Master and Servant. The Indian legislature has dealt with Master and the criminal breach of this contract by the servant; but has done servant. little to define and amend, except in the territories subject to the Indian Emigration Act, the law regulating the mutual civil rights and liabilities of employer and employed. In fact the statutory law on this subject is now even more defective than it was twentyfour years ago. Owing to a slip in the Contract Act, s. 11, minors cannot now enter into contracts of service; and the rules as to the notice terminating the contract, which were contained in the Bengal Regulation VII of 1819, s. 6, were repealed by Act XVII of 1862. The master's liability for his servant's acts falls under the law of principal and agent, and there is a special provision as to the liability of the proprietor of a stage-carriage for certain acts done by his driver. An order for winding up a company is notice of discharge to its servants, except where its business is continued. The servant's preferential right to payment of wages from the estate of his deceased master is declared by the Succession Act 5; and the wages of labourers and domestic servants are exempt from attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure ". Magistrates have a summary jurisdiction in disputes as to wages, hire of carriage, and price of work between employers and their workmen employed in constructing railways, canals, and other public works, and under Act XIII of 1859 fraudulent breach of contract by workmen is punishable, and there is (or was) a Bombay Rule, Order, and Regulation, I of 1814, as to domestic servants o. The penal legislation above referred to is justified by the inutility, in the case of most servants, of the ordinary remedy by suit for damages. For the same reason, there should be a summary power (exerciseable by selected magistrates) to enforce a domestic servant's principal duties. The complaint should be made promptly |