JUDGMENT Bodilly, J. - In this case the Plaintiff sues to recover damages for conversion of two Bills of Exchange or hundis of which he was the endorsee for value and which were sent by post to his agent in Calcutta for collection. It has been proved before me to my satisfaction that the hundis in question were signed by the agents of the Defendants in the ordinary course of business and with ostensible authority to do so. 2. The hundis, as I have said, were sent to Calcutta by post and during their transmission they were stolen by some one or at any rate were so lost that they did not reach their destination but they fell into the hands of some person other than the person for whom they were intended and who took them to the Defendants, and the Defendants upon production of the document and without any enquiry as to the identity of the person who was presenting it or as to his bond pies paid the amount of the hundis amounting to 2,275 rupees. 3. Under these circumstances the Plaintiff brings his action. He says, and it is a fact, that the hundi bears on its back the due endorsement of Mookund Ram Juggernath to the Plaintiff and it also bears a declaration on its face that it had been sent for collection by Babu Chotu Lall Durga Persad. 4. The Plaintiff contends that if the Defendants chose to disregard a direction as to where and when the payment is to be made appearing on the face of the document and to pay, as I said before, without due or any enquiry to a person who did not ever purport to have any concern with the person to whom payment was to be made--they make such payment at their peril. 5. This contention seems to me to be sound. 6. It has been urged before me that this is not an action for conversion or even if it is that the measure of damages must be something different to the whole value of the hundis. 7. Neither of these contentious is in my opinion sound. 5. This contention seems to me to be sound. 6. It has been urged before me that this is not an action for conversion or even if it is that the measure of damages must be something different to the whole value of the hundis. 7. Neither of these contentious is in my opinion sound. Apart from authority on this point, it is clear that the Plaintiff had his original remedy either in contract or in tort and he has chosen to adopt the remedy in tort, and has sued for damages for conversion, and the result of the documents having been kept from him is that he has been prevented from realizing what he could otherwise have realised, that is, the full amount due upon the hundi which amount would therefore he the measure of damages he has suffered. 8. There is very strong authority on this point. 9. The case of Gones Das Ram Navayan v. Lackminarayan ILR 18 Bom. 570 (1891) is very much in point and there it was held under the circumstances of the suit which are very similar to the present case that not only was the Plaintiff right in bringing his action for conversion but that he was also entitled to recover by way of damages the full value of the security. It was also held by Mr. Justice Caird in a similar English case of Kleinwort Sons & Co. v. Comptoir National D'Escompte De Paris L.R. (1894) 2 Q.B. 157, that the action was properly brought in trover. 10. Under these circumstances I have no alternative but to give judgment for the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 2,275 and interest from the date of the bill at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum uptill decree. 11. The Plaintiff must have the costs of the action on scale No. 2. 12. Mr. Gregory submits that interest should not be allowed from the date of the bill as the action could have been brought at a much earlier period. Bodilly, J. 13. I think that is so. Mr. B.C. Mitter, J. 14. We first came to know of it in January 1903. Cites sec. 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Bdoilly, J. I allow interest for 18 months prior to the date of action at 6 per cent. per annum and 6 per cent on decree.