Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/426

 Agency.

204 Sect.

Where the agent has mixed his principal's money or property with his own, the principal has a first charge, as against the agent's trustee intrusted to in bankruptcy and creditors, on the mixed fund {h) or property (c), if Agent. still in specie, or on their proceeds {cl), as the case may be, provided that the money, property, or proceeds can be clearly identified. Principal's Goods

2.

etc.

property

435. Where the agent has misappropriated

his principal's money as against the agent's trustee in Misappropria- bankruptcy and creditors, to follow the proceeds of such money or tion by agent. l)roperty, and take them in their existing form, provided that it is possible to trace them (e).

mixed with

agent's.

or property, the principal

Dispositions

436. Where a principal by any conduct on his part allows or enables his agent to appear as owner of any property belonging to the principal, the principal is bound by any sale(/), pledge (^), or other disposition of such property by the agent to the extent

Site-Sect.

by apparent owner.

2.

is entitled,

— Unautliorised

Dis])ositions hinding

on the Principal.

such disposition, as regards all persons dealing for valuable consideration with the agent, provided that at the time of the disposition they had no notice of the principal's title and believed the agent to be the owner {h). But it is not sufficient for the principal merely to have been guilty of negligence, however gross (i), in the care of his property, whereby the agent obtained the opportunity of making the unauthorised disposition. The principal must himself have committed some indiscretion, that is to say, he must have done some act which was calculated to mislead, and did in fact mislead, the person dealing with the agent, or omitted some precaution which it was his duty towards such person to take (J). In the case of money {k) or negotiable instruments (/), the rule applies even though the persons dealing with the agent knew him to be an agent, unless they knew him to be acting without authority or in breach of faith (ii). of

Negotiable instruments or

money.

Smith (lb89), 41 Oh. D. 456; Be Hallett <& Co., Ex parte Blane, Re Halletfa Estate (1880), 18 Ch. D. 696; but see Wilsons and Eimie.'^s- Leyland Line, Ltd. v. British and Continental Shipping Co., Ltd. {h)

Hancock

v.

[1894] 2 Q. B. 237



(1907), 23 T. L. E. 397. (c) Llarris v. Trttman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 264. (d) Erith V. Cartland (1865), 34 L. J. (CH.) 301. (e)

Taylor

v.

Flumer

(1815), 3

(/) See Earquharson Brothers

Halsbury,

M. &

&

S. 562. Co. v. Iving

&

Co.,

[1902] A. 0. 325, per Lord

at p. 332.

(g) Marshall v. National Provincial Bank of England (1892), 61 L. J. (cH.) 465 Pickerings. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38; Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), ss. 21 (1) (estoppel), 22 (1) (sale in market overt). McCornbie v. Davies (1805), 7 East, 5 ; (h) Calloiu V. Kelson (1862), 10 W. E. 193 and see Eactors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 7. Cooke v. Eshelhy (1887), {i) But see Eox v. Martin (1895), 64 L. J. (cH.) 473; 12 App. Cas. 271. (y) Bank of Ireland v. Trustees of Evans'' Charities in Ireland (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 389; Scholfield v. Lord Londeslorough, [1896] A. C. 514. {k) Marten v. Rocke, Eyton Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 946; Union Bank of Austrcdia V. Murray- Aynsley, [1898] A. C. 693. Goodivin v. Roharts (l) London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201 (1876), 1 App. Cas. 476; Rumhall v. Metropolitan Bank (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 194; and see. further, title Bills of Exchange etc. (m) Earl of Sheffield v. London Joint Stock Bank (1888), 13 App. Cas. 333. (n) Bodenham v. Hoskyns (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 903; and compare Shields Bank of Neiu South Wales v. Goulburn V. Bank of Ireland, [1901] 1 Ir. E. 222 Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 543.