Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/370

 356 FEDERAL REPORTER. �received paid to the firm; second, that the plaintiff was involving himself in litigation in chancery, and that this brig was all of hia property and wonld be likely to be taken from him if lie should be unsuccessM ; third, that the vessel was depreciating in ^alue, and there was no certainty as to bis retum, and that it was for his inter- est to thus dispose of her. �In the opinion of the court the real cause of the sale is the one first assigned, to-wit, that William, for some cause, then insisted on pay- ment of the amount for which the plaintiff was then indebted to the firm; and the question is whether by this instrument E. K. Glover, as- the agent of the plaintiff, was authori/ed in his behalf thus to sell at priTate sale to his brother this vessel, to raise means with which to discharge the plaintiff's indebtment to the firm of which E. K. Glover was a member, he being also personally accountable to the firm for the payment of these olaims. The language of the instru- ment is broad and comprehensive, authorizing E. K. Glover to sell, transfer, and deliver such of the plaintiff's property — �" To such persons and for such sums and on such terras as to him, my said attorney, may appear proper and expedient, and to make and execute all nec- essary bills of sale therefor." �This authority might, perhaps, under ordinary ciroun^stances, be sufficient to sustain a sale of a vessel to a Etranger, when the purpose was not thereby to obtain the means of payment of a demand due to the attorney, but will it support the present proceedings ? At the time this instrument was given, the plaintiff expeoted to be absent frbm the country, and it does not appear that he'was then indebted to the firm or either of its members, and it is not claimed that this instrument was intended to be coupled with any interest or as a security to the attorney. The agency was created solely for the ben- efit and advantage of the plaintiff, and in his behalf, and everything which was to be transacted under it was to be done in the interests of the plaintiff, and in no respect in promotion of any profit or per- sonal benefit of the attorney. While acting under this authority he could not assume any duty incompatible with the interest of his prin- cipal, nor act in any transaction where he himself had any adverse interest. �The remarks of Lord Cranworth in the House of Lords, 1 McQueen, 461, (Railwaj Co. v. Blakie,) are pertinent to this proceeding. An agent bas duties to discharge of 9. fiduciary character towards his prin- cipal, and it is a rule of universal application that no one having ��� �