Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/409

 Part

VIII.

— Relations

between Principal and Agent.

187

^^ct. 2. 400. Any money or other property intrusted to an agent by his Rights of principal or received by him on his principal's behalf must be kept Principal separate, and not mixed with his own (t). Otherwise, all which he against cannot show to be his own will be presumed to belong to the principal (a). When an agent is employed to carry out any transaction which Principal's involves a payment to him on his principal's behalf, he must not property to be separate, compromise his principal's rights (b) or part with his property (c), ^^^^ until he has received payment, unless authorised by his instructions ^ade to*affent or by usage to do so (d). Payment, in the absence of instructions for principal, or usage, must be received in cash, and not otherwise (e). ^

^

^

401. All moneys received on the principal's behalf (/) must be Payment over paid over, or accounted iov{g), to the principal upon request (/i), yg^eived'^ unless the agent has for some lawful reason repaid them to the person from whom he received them (i). It is immaterial that the transaction in respect of which the moneys are received is void {k) Nor or illegal (Q, provided that the agency itself is not illegal can the agent retain such moneys against the principal in respect of a debt due to himself from the 23erson paying them {n), or because of some claim made to them by some thn-d person (o). Where the moneys are received on behalf of joint principals, the Payrnent agent is liable to account to them jointly, and is not discharged by p^j.i"ij^ipals payment to one or more of them only, unless by authority of all {p). Gray

Haig

(6)

Olarke v. Tipping (1846), 9 Beav. (1855), 20 Beav. 218 White (1808), 15 Yes. 432. As in Fape v. IVestacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272.

(c)

As

{t)

v.



2:84.

(a) LiijJton V.

in

Brown

v.

Boorman

(1844), 11 CI.

&

F.

1



Kidd

v.

Home

(1885),

2 T. L. E. 141. {d) Wiltshire Y. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258; Earl of Ferrers v. Bohins (1835), 2 Or. M. & E. 152. factor {Houghton v. MaMhews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485) and a broker [Brown v. Boorman, supra) have an implied authority to sell on credit. (e) As by a negotiable instrument (Pope V. Westacott, supra ; Wiltshire y. Sims, supra ; Earl of Ferrers v. Bohins, supra ; Hine v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate (1895), 72 L. T. 79), unless authorised by usage {FarrerY. Lacy (1885), 31 Ch. D. or by set-off or settlement of accounts {Sweeting y. Fearce (1859), 7 C. B. 42) (n. s.) 449 Legge v. Byas Mosley & Go. (1901), 7 Com. Cas. 16), any usage to that effect being unreasonable {Matveieff Go. v. Grossfield (1903), 51 W. E. 365, and cases last cited), or by taking other goods {HowardY. Ghapman (1831), 4 C. & P. 508. And see Gatterall v. Hindle (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 187, and, on appeal (1867), L. E. 2 C. 368. (/) As to what may be equivalent to a receipt, see Gillard v. Wise (1826), 5 B. & C. 134. {g) For the duty to account, see p. 188, 2'>ost. (h) Harsant y. Blaine (1887), 56 L. J. (Q. B.) 511. (/) Murray v. Mann (1848), 2 Exch. 538. (/c) BridgerY. Savage (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 363 ; De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894), 63 L. J. (Q. B.) 248. {I) Bousfield V. Wilson (1846), 16 M. & W. 185; Tenant y. Elliott (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 3; Farmer v. Russell (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 296 Sharp y. Taylor (1849), 2 Ph. 801 and see Sijkes v. Beadon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 170. (w) Booth V. Hodgson (1795), 6 Term Eep. 405 ; Gatlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp. 183 Knowles y. Haughton{lS05), 11 Yes. 168; Battersby v. Smyth (1818), 3 Madd. 110,. with which compare Davenport v. Whiimore (1836), 2 My. & Cr. 177. (n) Heath v. Ghilton (1844), 12 M. & W. 632. (o) Eoherts v. Ogilby (1821), 9 Price, 269 .Dixon v. Hamond (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 310. As to the cases in which he may interplead, see p. 200, ^oost. {p) Lee V. Sankey (1873), L. E. 15 Eq. 204; Heath v. Ghilton, supra.

A





P