https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292022 An indemnity claim was not defeated merely because the decrees relied on had already become unenforceable; limitation for enforcement of the decrees did not keep the underlying liability alive, but that did not by itself bar recovery under the indemnity covenant. The payment made to clear the encumbrance created by the mortgagor's transaction was treated as loss within the scope of the covenant, and the voluntary-payment objection failed on the facts assumed. The appellants were therefore entitled to recover the amount paid, with interest, under the indemnity covenant, and the prior decision was set aside. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:14:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292022 An indemnity claim was not defeated merely because the decrees relied on had already become unenforceable; limitation for enforcement of the decrees did not keep the underlying liability alive, but that did not by itself bar recovery under the indemnity covenant. The payment made to clear the encumbrance created by the mortgagor's transaction was treated as loss within the scope of the covenant, and the voluntary-payment objection failed on the facts assumed. The appellants were therefore entitled to recover the amount paid, with interest, under the indemnity covenant, and the prior decision was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Jul 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292022