Agency - 1849- 1899

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 25 cases, and was prepared on 04 October 2008.

Robertson -v- Wait (1853) 8 Ex 299
1853	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers

Collen -v- Wright (1857) 8 B & E 647
1857	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The law of breach of the warranty of authority should be read to imply a remedy to an innocent third party, with whom the agent has purported without authority to make a contract or to reach a settlement of outstanding liabilities under a contract, against the agent.

Jones -v- Phipps [1868] LR 2 QB 567
1868 QBD	Landlord and Tenant, Agency	1 Citers
	For many years, an agent had, with the authority of his principals, dealt with an estate as his own and negotiated with the tenant as to the terms and continuance of the holding. Held: It was incidental to that authority that he should determine the tenancy by notice to quit. The tenant was not aware of the existence of the agent's principals and considered the agent to be the landlord.

Australasian Steam Navigation Co -v- Morse (1872) LR 4 PC 222
1872 PC Sir Montague Smith	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	Sir Montague Smith: "... when by the force of circumstances a man has the duty cast upon him of taking some action for another, and under that obligation, adopts the course which, to the judgment of a wise and prudent man, is apparently the best for the interest of the persons for whom he acts in a given emergency, it may properly be said of the course so taken, that it was, in a mercantile sense, necessary to take it."

Hamilton -v- Dixon 1873 1R 72
1873 Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff	Agency	Casemap
	The court heard an allegation concerning an alleged obligation to deliver pig iron. Held: "it was too plain to require argument that in order to authorise an agent to give away his employer's goods without consideration, direct and immediate sanction to the individual transaction would be necessary."

Parker -v- McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch 124
1874 CA James LJ	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	"I do not think it is necessary, but it appears to me very important, that we should concur in laying down again and again the general principle that in this court no agent in the course of his agency, in the matter of his agency, can be allowed to make any profit without the knowledge and consent of his principal; that that rule is an inflexible rule, and must be applied inexorably by this court, which is not entitled, in my judgment, to receive evidence, or suggestion, or argument as to whether the principal did or did not suffer any injury in fact by reason of the dealing of the agent; for the safety of mankind requires that no agent shall be able to put his principal in the danger of such an inquiry as that."

Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co -v- India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515
1875	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where his agent has taken a secret commission, the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it provided counter-restitution can be made.

Hollins -v- Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757
1875 HL Blackburn J, Brett J	Torts - Other, Agency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	One who deals with goods at the request of the person who has the actual custody of them, in the bona fide belief that the custodier is the true owner, or has the authority of the true owner, should be excused for what he does if the act is of such a nature as would be excused if done by the authority of the person in possession if he was a finder of the goods or intrusted with their custody. Thus a warehouseman with whom goods had been deposited is guilty of no conversion by keeping them or restoring them to the person who deposited them with him, though that person turns out to have had no authority from the true owner. The same principle applies to persons "acting in a subsidiary character, like that of a person who has the goods of a person employing him to carry them, or a caretaker, such as a wharfinger". Blackburn J (Advising the House): "If, as is quite possible, the changes in the course of business since the principles of law were established make them cause great hardships or inconvenience, it is the province of the Legislature to alter the law."

National Mercantile Bank Ltd -v- Rymill [1881] 44 LTNS 767
1881 CA Bramwell LJ, Brett and Cotton LJJ	Agency, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff was the owner of horses the subject of a bill of sale. The grantor of the bill sold the horses privately in the defendant's auction yard and following the sale, on the grantor's instructions, the auctioneer delivered the horses to the buyer. It was held that there had been no conversion. Held: The auctioneer did not claim to transfer the title and did not purport to sell; all the dominion he exercised over the chattels was to redeliver them to the person to whom the man from whom he had received them had told him to redeliver them. On the evidence there had been no sale by the auctioneer. A bailee escapes liability for conversion, not only where he merely redelivers to his bailor, but where he delivers at the bailor's directions to a third party without knowledge of any adverse claim, though with knowledge that such delivery is in pursuance of a sale or other disposition.

National Mercantile Bank -v- Rymill (1881) 44 LTNS 767
1881 Bramwell LJ, Brett and Cotton LJJ	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff owned horses subject to a bill of sale. The grantor of the bill sold the horses privately in the defendant's auction yard and following the sale, on the grantor's instructions, the auctioneer delivered the horses to the buyer. Held: There had been no conversion. Bramwell LJ: [the auctioneer:] "has not claimed to transfer the title and he has not purported to sell; all the dominion he exercised over the chattels was to redeliver them to the person to whom the man from whom he had received them had told him to redeliver them." Brett and Cotton LJJ agreed that on the evidence there had been no sale by the auctioneer. This case has been criticised, mainly for the conclusion that there had been no sale by the auctioneer.

West London Commercial Bank -v- Kitson [1883] 12 QBD 157
1883	Agency	Casemap

Re Lewis ex parte Helder (1883) 24 ChD 339
1883 CA Sir Baliol Brett MR	Insolvency, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	An agent in obedience to a previous instruction of his principal paid away money of the principal which was in his hands knowing before he made the payment that when completed it would constitute an act of bankruptcy on the part of his principal. The principal was afterwards adjudicated bankrupt. Held: The agent was not liable to account to the trustee for the money paid away. The Court did not rely upon the fact that the money was paid away before adjudication which would have been sufficient, but on the fact that the money did not become the trustee's money until the completion of the act of bankruptcy to which his title would relate back, ie. until after the money had left the agent's hands: "It appears to me that on this ground - that the money did not become the trustee's money until the payment had been completed- Mr. Roberts is not liable to the trustee"

Firbank's Executors -v- Humphryes (1886) 18 QBD 54
1886 CA Lord Esher MR	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff was induced to enter into a transaction by the someone pretending to be the principal. The defence was that he was the principal's innocent agent. Held: Lord Esher MR discussed the warranty of authority: "The rule to be deduced is, that where a person by asserting that he has the authority of the principle induces another to enter into any transaction which he would not have entered into but for that assertion, and that assertion turns out to be untrue, to the injury of the person to whom it is made, it must be taken that the person making it undertook that it was true, and he is liable personally for the damage that has occurred."

Blackburn, Low & Co -v- Vigors (1886) 17 QBD 553
1886 CA Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ,	Agency, Insurance, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Lord Esher MR: "This seems to me to be the true doctrine. The freedom from mis-representation or concealment is a condition precedent to the right of the assured to insist on the performance of the contract, so that on a failure of the performance of the condition the assured cannot enforce the contract." Lindley LJ: "It is a condition of the contract that there is no misrepresentation or concealment either by the assured or by anyone who ought as a matter of business and fair dealing to have stated or disclosed the facts to him or to the underwriter for him." Lord Halsbury LC warned against "the somewhat vague use of the word 'agent'" which, he said, "leads to confusion" in insurance cases.

Blackburn, Low & Co -v- Vigors (1887) 12 App Cas 531
1887 HL Lord Macnaghten, Lord Watson, Lord Fitzgerald	Agency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was a condition precedent of full disclosure of material facts in an insurance contract. The duty of an agent to disclose circumstances within his own knowledge to the insurer is independent of the duty of the insured to make disclosure, but: "... it would, in my opinion, be a dangerous extension of the doctrine of constructive notice to hold that persons who are themselves absolutely innocent of any concealment or misrepresentation, and who have not wilfully shut their eyes or closed their ears to any means of information, are to be affected with the knowledge of matters which other persons may be morally though not legally bound to communicate to them." .

Toulmin -v- Millar (1887) 58 LT 96
1887 HL Lord Watson	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers

Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co -v- Ansell (1888) 39 ChD 339
1888 CA Bowen LJ	Agency, Employment	Casemap 1 Citers
	An employer having dismissed an employee (its managing director) later learnt of the employee's fraud. Held: The employer was allowed to rely upon that fraud to justify the dismissal. Where an agent is in wrongful repudiation of his contract with his principal, he loses his right to claim remuneration from his principal. It is sufficient if there was a fundamental breach of contract justifying a dismissal whether or not the employer knew of it at the time of dismissal: “...the receipt of a commission from the shipbuilding company was good ground for dismissal, although it was not discovered until after the dismissal had taken place; and although it happened several months previously, and might have been an isolated act.” The managing director could not recover his salary for the part of the year which he had completed before his dismissal. His right to his salary was conditional on his fulfilling his duties for the year and that condition had not been fulfilled. The contract was indivisible, and no payment under it could be claimed.

Barker -v- Furlong (1891) 2 CH 172
1891 Romer J	Agency, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Citers
	The executor plaintiffs were entitled to furniture which was sent to auction without their knowledge or consent. Some of the furniture was returned unsold to the would-be seller and no claim was made against the defendant auctioneer in respect of that furniture. But he was held liable for the furniture he sold. Held: Where, as here, the auctioneer receives the goods into his custody, and, on selling them, hands over the goods to the purchasers with a view to passing the property in them, then I think the auctioneer has converted the goods and is liable accordingly. The general rule is that where an agent takes part in transferring the property in a chattel and it turns out that his principal has no title, his ignorance of this fact affords him no protection. Cases of a carrier and packing agent might support the case of the auctioneers. But carrier and packing agents are generally held not to have converted, because by their acts they merely purport to change the position of the goods and not the property in them.

Mullens -v- Miller [1892] 22 Ch D 194
1892	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where an agent enters into a contract on behalf of a principal and the opposite party has been induced to enter into it by an innocent misrepresentation by the agent, the opposite party is entitled to rescission provided that the making of a representation of that kind was within the actual or apparent authority of the agent.

Consolidated Co -v- Curtis & Son (1892) 1 QB 495
1892 QBD	Torts - Other, Agency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An auctioneer who sold and delivered goods the subject of a bill of sale. An auctioneer who sells and delivers is liable in conversion because he is acting as more than a mere broker or intermediary. Held: It is not easy to draw the line at the precise point where a dealing with goods by an intermediary becomes a conversion. The difficulty is diminished by remembering that in trover the original possession was by a fiction deemed to be lawful … and some act had therefore to be shown constituting a conversion by the defendant of the chattel to his own use, some act incompatible with a recognition on his part of the continuous right of the true owner to the dominion over it. All acts which are consistent with the duty of a mere finder such as the safeguarding by warehousing or asportation for the like purpose, may well be looked upon as entirely compatible with the right of the true owner, and, therefore, as not constituting a conversion by the defendant. The test may be whether there is an intent to interfere in any manner with the title of or ownership in the chattel, not merely with the possession. The difficulty is rather in drawing the true inference from facts in particular cases than in grasping the principle. There can be no conversion by a mere bargain and sale without a transfer of possession. The act, unless in market overt, is merely void, and does not change the property or the possession: Lancashire Wagon Co. v Fitzhugh A fortiori, mere intervention as broker or intermediary in a sale by others is not a conversion.

Bryant Powis & Bryant -v- La Banque du Peuple [1893] AC 170
1893 PC Lord Macnaghten	Commonwealth, Agency	1 Citers
	Powers of Attorney are to be construed strictly.

Pape -v- Westacott [1894] 1 QB 272
1894	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The landlord's agent, in breach of his authority, released a licence to assign a lease taking a cheque (instead of cash) for the outstanding rent due from the existing tenant. This took place in the presence of the assignee, who did not however know of the excess of authority. Held: The court dismissed a suggestion that the landlord could still have distrained against the assignee. The agent had as far as the assignee was concerned been held out as acting with authority, but the agent was liable to the landlord for exceeding his authority.

Gaskell -v- Gosling [1896] 1 QB 669
1896 CA Rigby LJ (dissenting)	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The agency of a receiver for the mortgagor is one where the principal, the mortgagor, has no say in the appointment or identity of the receiver and is not entitled to give any instructions to the receiver or to dismiss the receiver. "For valuable consideration he has committed the management of his property to an attorney whose appointment he cannot interfere with" and "a receiver and manager appointed by a mortgagee under an agreement that he shall be the agent of the mortgagor is in the same position as if appointed by the mortgagor himself, and as if every direction given to him emanated from the mortgagor himself."

Re Hampshire Land Co [1896] 2 Ch D 74
1896	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The rule of law that information held by an agent in the course of his agency is to be imputed to his principal, has an exception where the agent is committing a fraud on his principal.

Shipway -v- Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369
1899 Chitty LJ	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where an agent takes a commission, "the real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it"