Chinnaya Nayudu v. Gurunatham Chetti

1. The bond of May 1874 is not expressed as binding on the family, and if it had been so expressed, it would not have affected with liability any but the persons who executed it. A manager has authority to make payments for the family; he has the same authority to acknowledge as he has to create debts, but he has no power to revive a claim barred by limitation, unless he is expressly authorized to do so; and on the 17th May 1874 the debt acknowledged in April 1870 had become barred.

2. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.