Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/437

 —

—— Relations between Principal and Third Persons.

Part IX.

Sect.

Admissions by Agent.

5.

215 Sect.

5.

455. Where a principal gives his agent authority to make admis- "^l^A^^ent^ sions on his behalf, the principal is bound, as regards third persons, by any admission so made (i), provided that such admission When prinbound, Where, howis one which the agent has authority to make {k). any admission his the agent makes without, or in excess of, ever, authority, the principal is not bound by it (l) unless the agent, at the time when he made it (m), was acting on his principal's behalf («) in the transaction to which the admission referred (o), and made it in the ordinary course of his duty as such agent (p). In no case does any admission of the agent operate to bind his How far prinbound, principal, except as regards the transaction in respect of which it was made (q), nor can any statement made by an agent to his principal be used as an admission against the principal by third persons (r). Where the admission made by an agent binds the principal, it binds him to the same extent as it would have done if he had made ,

himself

it

(s).

Sect.

Notice to Agent,

6.

456. Where an agent, in the course of any transaction in which when is employed on his principal's behalf (0, receives notice (a) or imputed to acquires knowledge {h) of any fact material to such transaction (c), P^^^^^P^lunder such circumstances that it is his duty to communicate it to the

he

{i)

Welshach

Innes (1808), {k)

1

Linsell v.

M. & W.

etc.

Co. v. 364.

New

SunligJit Co.,

[1900] 2 Ch.

1



Williams

v.

Camp.

Bonsor (1835), 2 Bing.

(n. C.)

241



Meredith

v.

Footner (1843), 11

202.

(l) Barnett South London Tramiuays Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815; v. Pelch V. Ltjon (1846), 9 Q. B. 147 Young v. Wright (1807), 1 Camp. 139 Blackstone v. Wilson (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 229. (m) Great Western Rail. Co. v. Willis (1865), 18 0. B. (n. s.) 748. {n) Pelch V. Lyon, supra; Young v. Wright, supra. (o) Blackstone Y. Wilson, supra. Ip) Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Rail Co. (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 468; Biggs V. Laiurence (1789), 3 Term Eep. 454 ; British Columbia etc. Co. v. Nettleship (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 499; Richardson v. Peto (1840), 1 Man. & a. 896. [q) Blackstone v. Wilson, supra. (r) Re Devala etc. Co., Ex parte Aobott (1883), 22 Ch. D. 593; Langhorn v. Allnutt (1812), 4 Taunt. 511 ; Reyner v. v. Jansen (1812), 4 Taunt. 565 Pearson (1812), 4 Taunt. 662. Otherwise if the statement is made to the principal by the agent in the course of his duty {The Sohuay (1885), 10 P. D. 137). (s) As, for instance, if in writing, in preventing the operation of the Statute of Limitations (Anderson v. Sanderson (1817), 2 Stark. 204; Burt v. Palmer (1804), 5 Esp. 145 Gregory v. Parker (1808), 1 Camp. 394), and similarly in case of part payment {Re Hale, [1899] 2 Ch. 107, per Lindley, M.E., at p. 119). (^) Wilson V. Salamandra Assurance Co. (1903), 88 L. T. 96; Hiern v. HiJl (1806), 13 Ves. 114; and contrast Bawden v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 534, with. Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 516. The rule applies to sub-agents employed with the principal's consent {Re Ashton, Ex parte McGowan (1891), 64 L. T. 28 Truman's Case, [1894] 3 Ch. 272). (a) Gladman v. Johnson (1867), 36 L. J. (c. P.) 153 Tanham v. Nicholson (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 561. {b) Baldwin v. Casella (1872), L. E. 7 Exch. 325. The knowledge may have been acquired before the transaction, if it is in fact present in the agent's mind at the material time {Fuller v. Benett (1843), 2 Hare, 394 RollandY. Hart (1871), 6 Ch. App. 678 Bradley v. Riches (1878), 9 Ch. D. 189. But see notes (i) and (A;), p. 2Q,post). (c) WylUe V. Pollen (1863), 32 L. J. (cH.) 782.



KaU