Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/449

 —

—

y

Relations between Agent and Third Persons.

Pakt X.

227

^^ But where he names his principal and makes the contract expressly Rights of as agent (c) on his behalf, he cannot enforce it (d), even though he Agent, is the real principal (e), unless the other party has affirmed the knowledge of the fact contract with (/). An agent cannot sue for a promised bribe, even though he was No right to not influenced thereby in the discharge of his duty to his principal (g). ^^^^^-^^[^6 Where an agent is entitled to sue upon a contract made by him ^. his right is lost by the intervention of his principal {li), and is enfoi-ce^con-^ subject to any settlement with either the principal (i) or the agent, tract lost, even though in the latter case such defence would not be available against the principal {k). But an agent who has a special interest in the subject-matter of the contract (/) may enforce it (m), notwithstanding any settlement with the principal {n), unless the agent has not been 23rejudiced by the settlement (o), or unless he is estopped from setting up his interest against the other contracting party (p). In any action brought by an agent, the defendant is entitled to discovery from the principal as fully as if he were the plaintiff on the record, even though he is a foreign principal (q).

Sub-Sect.

2.

Recovery of

Money paid

hy

Agent

474. An

agent who has paid money on behalf of his principal Money had received, to a third person under such circumstances {r) that the principal, if the payment had been made by him, would have been entitled to recover the money, may bring an action in his own name for mone}^ had and received against the third person (s). The rule applies to a

del credere agent {Bramiuelly. SpiUer (1870), 21 L. T. 672). Fenton (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 169; Bowen v. Morris (1810), 2 Taunt. 374; Evans v. Hooper (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 45, except where lie is an insurance broker [Provincial Insurance Co. of Canada v. Leduc (1874), L. E. 6 P. C. 224 and see title Insueance), or an agent with a special interest in the subject-matter of the contract (see note (/), infra). (c)

Id) Fairlie v.



{e) Bickerton v. Burrell (1816), 5 M. & S. 383. (/) Baij)ier v. Grote (1846), 15 M. & W. 359. (g) Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 549. (A) Atkinson v. Cotesworth (1825), 3 B. & C. 647 Sadler v. Leigh (1815), 4

Camp.

195.

{i) Rogers v. Hadley (1863), Thornton v. Maynard (1875), 2 H. & C. 227 L. E. 10 C. P. 695. [k) Gibson v. Winter (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 96; Bauerman v. Radenius (1198) 7 Term Eep. 663. Pearson (1870), L. E. 5 0. P. 568,, (/) As a factor or auctioneer {Gray v. per WlLLES, J., at p. 574), but not a broker (Fairlie v. Fenton, supra). (m) Williams Y. Millingtou (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81 Brinkwater v. Goodivin (1775),



Cowp. 251. (n)

493



(o)

E.

&

Robinson v. Rutter (1855), 4 E. & B. 954; Athyns v. Amber (1796), 2 Esp. Isberg y. Boivden (1853), 8 Exch. 852. Grice v. Kenrick (1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 340; Holmes y. Tutton (ISoo), 5 B. 65.

ip) Coppin Y. Walker (1816), 2 Marsh. 497. (q) Willis V. Baddeley, [1892] 2 Q. B. 324; James Nelson & So7is, Ltd. v. Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B. 217, at p. 223. But see Queen of Portugal Y. Glyn (1840), 7 01. & F. 466. (r) As mistake of fact (Colonial Bank v. Exchange Bank (1885), 11 App. Gas. 84), or fraud (Holt v. Ely (1853), 1 E. & B. 795), or extortion (Stevenson v. Mortimer (1778), 2 Cowp. 805). It is immaterial whether the principal authorised the payment or not (Holt v. Ely, supra, per Erle, J., at p. 800). (s) The action may be brought either by the principal or by the agent (Holt Y. Ely, supra, per Lord Campbell, C.J., at p. 799).

q2