Agency.
172 Sect.
3.
Position of Sub-agent.
For the acts and defaults of the first two classes the agent is responsible to the principal (e). Where an agent, employed to obtain payment, employed a sub-agent in India, and payment was actually made to the sub-agent, but not credited to the agent, the agent was held liable for the sub-agent's failure, on the ground that the principal could not be called upon to suffer loss through a sub-agent with
Kemuneration of sub-agent.
whom
he had no privity
(/).
374. The sub-agent, not as a rule being brought into contractual with the principal, must look to the agent for his
relationship
remuneration and indemnity (c/). Thus, where an agent for the transport of goods, without authority delegated his entire duties, it was held that the person performing them was not entitled to recover for his services against the principal Sub-agent accountable to agent who employs him.
(h).
375. Similarly a sub-agent is, as a general rule, accountable only agent who employs him, and that agent in turn to his prin-
to the
cipal (i), so that a sub-agent taking over the conduct of the principal's business is not liable to render an account to him (k),
and cannot even be sued by the principal (except in the cases stated already (Z)) for money had and received to the principal's use {m). This rule applies as between a principal and the town agent of his country solicitor (n) but though there is no privity of contract between them, yet in a case where the town agent holds money to which the principal is entitled, even thoupjh such holding be not fraudulent, the Court may, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
over its principal
No
delegation
by body acting
through committee.
own
officers,
order
money
such
to
be paid
to
the
(o).
376. The distinction between a delegation of authority and the exercise of the authority by a body through a committee of its own
& Co. (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818 Sioire v. Francis & Co. y. Weguelin, Eddowes & Co. (1882), 1 Steamship Co. v. Lloyd, Lotu & Co. (1890), 7 T. L. E.
v. Ramsmjs, Bonars App. Gas. 106; Skinner
Mackersy
(e)
(1877), 3
Cab. & El. 12; Ecossaise 76 Meyerstein v. Eastern Agency Co. (1885), 1 T. L.,E. 595. (/) Mackersy v. Ramsay s, Bonars & Co., supra, at p. 845; Be Mitchell (1884), 54 L. J. (CH.) 342, where the agent was held liable for loss arising through his negligently leaving funds in a sub-agent's hands for a longer time than was necessary and without seeing vouchers. Masony. Clifton (1863), 3 F. & F. (g) Solly V. Bathhone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298
899.
Schmaling
{h)
Stephens
(?)
& M.
Nev.
v.
Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147. Badcock (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 354
y.
Sims
v. Britten
(1832), 1
(k. B.) 594.
(k) Lockwood v. Ahdy (1845), 14 Sim. 437; Cartwright y. Hateley (1791), 1 Yes. 292. ante. (1) See p. 171 (m) Cohh y. Becke (1845), 6 Q. B. 930. But see Blackharn y. Mason (1893), 68 L. T. 510 (money had and received recovered by principal from London agent of stockbroker). Wrayy. Kemp {n) Cobb y. Becke, supra; Bobbins y. Fennell (1847), 11 Q. B. 248 (1884), 26 Ch. D. 169. Hartley y. Cassan (1847), 11 Jur. (o) Bobbins 'y. Heath 11 Q. B. 257 1088 Ex parte Edivards (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 155, affirmed 8 Q. B. D. 262. ^See title Solicitors, and, as to the lien of the town agent, Farewell v. Coker (1728), '2 P. Wms., 460; Waller v. Holmes (1860), 1 John. & H. 239 (no lien if nothing due to country solicitor when lien claimed). ,
