Macpherson, J.:— There is a distinction between that case and the present. You have not served any of the defendants at their place of business in Calcutta. If the defendant who has been served had been at the time of service actually carrying on business m Calcutta for himself and the other defendants as partners, no doubt he might be deemed an agent for them under s. 17, cl. 2, and the service might be good. As it is, it is good only against the defendant served.
Attorney for the plaintiffs: Mr. Dignam.