Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/735

.

Part Y. auctioneer's

the

vendor

insolvency

—Deposit.

or

513

misconduct

will

fall

on

the

Part

V.

Deposit.

(g).

Where a sale is effected by a mortgagor and the sale is adopted by the mortgagee, the mortgagee is liable as between himself and the purchaser for the loss of the deposit whilst in the hands of the auctioneer (//) but as between mortgagor and mortgagee the loss will fall on the mortgagor if the auctioneer was the agent of the mortgagor @

1045. The auctioneer should be ready at any time to account for Auctioneer the deposit (k), but he is not liable to pay interest on it for the liable to pay deposit period during which he rightfully holds it as stakeholder, nor until at any time

demand receive

for

it

repayment has been made by some person

entitled to without interest.

®.

Part VI.

— Interpleader

Payment

and

into

Court. 1046. Where adverse claims are made to goods or money in the Interpleader hands of an auctioneer, he may interplead (m), subject to the by auctioneer. ordinary rules governing interpleader (n) In the application for, and on, the interpleader proceedings the Court has power to provide for the costs and charges of the auctioneer, and the claim for such costs and charges does not bar the auctioneer of his right to interplead as being interested in the subject-matter, even when he is entitled to them against one of the claimants only (o). The Court has also a discretionary power to allow the auctioneer to deduct from the deposit his costs of obtaining the interpleader order {p)..

Bowe v. Maij (1854), 18 (g) Smith v. Jackson and Lloyd (1816), 1 Madd. 618 Beav. 613 Annesley v. Muggridge (1816), 1 Madd. 593. As to the right to follow the deposit money which has been paid into the auctioneer's banking account, see Marten v. Hocke, Eyton & Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 946. (h) Roiue V. May (1854), 18 Beav. 613. {i) Barrow v. White (1862), 2 Jo. & H. 580. [k] Brown v. Staton (1816), 2 Chitt. 353; Orosskey v. Mills (1834), 1 C. M. & E.



'298.

(1817), 8 Taunt. 45; Harington v. Hoggart (1830j, 1 B. & Ad. Driver (1828), 2 Y. & J. 549. (m) E. S. 0., Ord. 57, r. 1. {n) See title Lstterpleader. See, for application to auctioneers of the ordinary rules as to identity of the property claimed, Wright v. Freeman (1879), 48 L. J. and see, as to collusion, (c. p.) 276 ; Hoggart y, Cutts (1841), 1 Or. & Ph. 197 Thompson v. Wright (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 632. (o) BestY. Hayes (1863), 1 H. & 0. 718, followed in Tanner v. Huropean Bank see also Attenhorough v. St. Katharine's Bock Co. (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 261 Be Rothschild v. Morrison, (1878), L. E. 3 0. P. D. 373, and, on appeal, 450 Kekewich & Co. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 750 Ex parte Mersey Bocks and Harbour Board, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546 ; Martinius v. Helmuth and Schmidt (1815), Coop. 245. Better v. Brickett (1850), 15 (p) Bitchers v. Edney (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 721 Q. B. 1081.

Munn

(0 Lee V.

577



Galy

v.











H.L.

—

I.

L L

Auctioneer's costs

and

charges.

Auctioneer's costs of interpleader.