Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/445

 — Paet X.

—

Relations between Agent and Third Persons.

22S

with the costs of any action upon the contract reasonably brought by the third person against him {k). Sub-Sect.

3.

Sect.

l.

Liabilities

of Agent.

For Moneys

received hy Agent.

468. The receipt of money from a third person by an agent on his Liability of ^^^^'^ principal's behalf, does not in itself render the agent personally liable to repay it when the third person becomes entitled as against person. the principal to repayment, whether the money remains in the

hands or not (Z). But if a third person pays money to an agent under a mistake of fact (771), or in consequence of some wrongful act (n), the agent is personally liable to repay it, unless, before the claim for repayment was made upon him, he has paid it to the principal or done something equivalent to payment to his principal (0). Where, however, the agent has been a party to the wrongful act (p), or has acted as a principal in the transaction (q), in consequence of which the money has been paid to him, he is not discharged from his liability to make repayment by any payment over to his principal (r). agent's

469. Where an agent is directed by his principal to pay to a third money which he has received or is about to receive on his principal's behalf, he is not in general responsible to the third person if he fails to do so (r), notwithstanding the fact that the money is received by him from the principal for the express person any

purpose of paying it over to the third person (s), or that his failure to comply with the direction is a breach of duty towards his principal {t). But he renders himself personally liable if he assents (/c) Hughes v. Graeme (1864:), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 335; Spedding y. Nevell (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 212 Godivhi v. Francis (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 295 and contrast Foru V. Davis (1861), 1 B. & S. 220. {I) EUis V. Goidton, [1893] 1 Q. B. 350, per Bowen, L.J., at p. 353; Bamford v. Shuttleworth (1810), 11 A. & E. 926, per Coleridge, J., at p. 933. {m) Coxy. Prentice {l%lb), '6 M.. & S. 344; Taylor y. Metropolitan Fail. Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 55. Galland v. Hall (1888), 4 T. L. E. («) Holland v. Fussell (1863), 4 B. & S. 14 East India Co. v. Tritton (1824), 5 D. & E. 214 ; Fx parte Bird, Fe Bourne 761 (1851), 4 De G-. &S. 273. (0) Bollard y. Bank of England (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 623, per Blackburn-, J., at p. 630 Cox v. Freniice, supra, per Lord Ellenborotjgh, C.J., at p. 348. mere crediting the principal with the amount, without there being any change of circumstances affecting the agent is not sufficient [Bullery. Harrison (mi), Cowp. 565 Coxy. Frentice, supra; Continental Caoutchouc Co. v. Kleinwort, [1904] 90 L. T. 474). {jp) Close Y. Fhipps (1844), 7 Man. & G. 586; Snoiudon v. Davis, (1808) 1 Taunt. 359 Ex parte Ediuards, Fe Chapman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747 Wakefield v. Neivhon (1844), 6 Q. B. 276, unless both parties are in pari delicto (Goodall y. Loiundes (1844), 6 Q. B. 464). {q) Neivall v. Tomlinson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 405. (r) Citizens' Bank of Louisiana and the Neiu Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v. First^ National Bank of New Orleans (1873), L. E. 6 H. L. 352; Steiuart v. Fry (1817), 7 Taunt. 339. The same rule applies to public agents, whether of the British Crown {Gidley y. Falmerston (1822), 3 B. & B. 275 R. v. Secretary of State for War, [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 Kinloch v. Secretary of State for India (1882), 7 App. Cas. 619 Salaman v. Secretary of State for India, [190(3] 1 B. 613),- or of foreign Governments {Henderson v. Rothschild (1887), 56 L. J. (CH.) 471; Tiuycross y. Dreyfus (1877), 5 Ch. D. 605). (s) Moore y. Bushell (1857), 27 L. J. (ex.) 3. (t) Schroeder y. Central Bank (1876), 34 L. T. 735.







A















K

Direction

^^^^ PJ^^overto^tMrd person,