Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/425

 —

—

Part IX. —Relations between Principal and Third Persons. his benefit (h), in which case he benefit received (/).

becomes hable

to the extent of the

203 ^^ct.

i.

In General.

433. Further, no act done by a person purporting to be an agent No liability acting on his principal's behalf, but having in fact no authority Jj^authorised from the principal so to act, is binding on the principal (k), unless agent. the latter is prechided by his conduct from denying the existence of the authority (l). Sect.

As

2.

Goods

to

Sub-Sect.

434. Where an agent

etc.

In

1.

intrusted to an Agent. Getteral.

intrusted with any money, goods, or other Unauthorised property belonging to his principal, no disposition of such property dispositions made by the agent without the authority of the principal is, as a prlacipfl. general rule (m), binding upon the principal (n) and, notwithstanding any such disposition, the principal is entitled to follow the property into the hands of third persons and recover it (o) or its value (p). Where the agent becomes bankrupt (q), the rule applies in favour Principal's "ght to follow of the principal against the agent's trustee in bankruptcy and creditors, and entitles the principal to follow and recover any goods una^ected by of his in the possession of the agent (r), together with any debts agent's which may be due to him in his capacity as agent of the principal (s). ^^ankruptcy. But this right of the principal is subject to any lien which the agent may have in respect of the goods or debts (t), and it does not attach at all where at the commencement of the bankruptcy the goods or debts were in the order and disposition of the agent under such circumstances as to make him their reputed owner (a). is



K

{h) Bannatijne v. Maclver, [1906] 1 B. 103; Reid v. Righij cfc Co., [1894] 2 Re Japanese Curtains and Patent Fabric Co., Ex parte bhoolhred Q. B. 40 (1880), 28 W. E. 839. {i) Unless tke third person was indebted to the principal, and the unauthorised act relates to the mode of enforcing payment, in which case the principal is entitled to keep the benefit without being liable for the agent's act {Freeman v. Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780 Leiuis v. Read (1845), 13 M. & W. 834) but contrast HaseJer v. Lemoyne (1858), 5 0. B, (N. s.) 530, where there was in fact a ratification (all cases of distress for rent). (/c) Wright y. Glyn, [1902] 1 K. B. Spooner v. Browning, [1898] 1 Q. B. 528, 745; Toddy. Fmly (1841), 7 M. & W. 427; and see Wise v. Perpetaal Trustee







[1903] A. C. 139. (0 See p. 201, ante.

Co.,

—

For the exceptions to the rule, see pp. 204 206, post, Cole v. P^arquharson Brothers & Co. v. King & Co., [1902] A. 0. 325 North Western Bank (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 354, per Blackburn, J., at p. 363. (o) Fox V. Martin (1895), 64 L. J. (CH.) 473'; Bodenham v. Hoskyns (1852), 2 De Gr. M. & Gr. 903 M'Comhie v. Davies (1805), 7 East, 5; Solomons v. Bank of England (1791), 13 East, 135. ip) Farquharson Brothers & Co. v. King & Co., supra. iq) For the principal's rights on the bankruptcy of his agent, see, further, title (m)

(n)





Bankruptcy and Insolvency. (r) Ex parte Saijers (1800), 5 Ves. 169 Whitfield v. Brand (1847), 16 M. & W. 282; Ex parte Greemvood, Re Thickhroom (1862), 6 L. T. 558; Giles v. Perkins

(1807), 9 East, 12. (s) 8cott V. Surman (1743),

Willes, 400; Ex parte Fauli, Re Trye (1838), Bright, Re Smith (1879), 10 Ch. D. 566. {t) See Giles v. Perkins, supra, per Lord Ellenborough, C.J., at p. 14. (a) Bankruptc}^ Act, 1883 {46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44; in such case the principal has a right to prove in the bankruptcy for their value {Re Button, Ex parte Haviside, [1907] 1 K. B. 397). 3 Dea. 169;

Ex parte