—
.
—
Agency.
192 Sect.
2.
Rights of Principal
within the contemplation of the parties (li). This may include which has actually been lost, but not merely anticipated profits which might have been made if the agent had performed his duty {i).
profit
against Agent. Denial of principal's rights.
Sub-Sect.
7.
Estoppel of Person purporting
Agent.
to act as
408. Where in any transaction a person has admittedly acted as agent on a principal's behalf (/c), he is estopped from denying the rights which have accrued to his principal in consequence, and from setting up any claims adverse thereto, whether in himself (l) or third
parties (m) This rule applies more especially in the case of goods which have intrusted to been intrusted to him (n), or in respect of which he has acknowledged agent. the title of his principal, whether in actual possession of them or not (o). But where the adverse claim is made by a third person, the agent may set up the latter's title, if he has actually handed over the goods to him or is acting by his authority and on his behalf (p), provided that he had no knowledge of the claim when he received the goods or attorned to his principal (q). If he is acting as agent for both parties, he may elect between them(?'). Agent cannot An agent in possession of property as agent (s) will not be peracquire title mitted to deny that his possession is that of his principal. He is as against therefore estopped from setting up a statutory title against the principal. principal {t), or maintaining his own title as true owner against the statutory title acquired by his principal through him (a). If he purchases land, and has the legal estate conveyed to him, he will not be permitted to plead the absence of a written declaration of trust (6). Nor, if money is paid to him by a third person, can he set up the illegality or nullity of the contract under which he received it (c). Goods
Sub-Sect. Attachment.
8.
Attachment of Defaulting Agent.
409. Whenever an agent who has received money on behalf of his principal in a fiduciary capacity fails to comply with an order of a Boyd V. Fitt (1864), 11 L. T. 280. Salvesen & Co v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan, [1905] A. 0. 302 Cassaloglou v. Gihh (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 797. {h) Sheridan Y.Neiv Quay Co. (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 618; A.-O. v. Corporation of London (1849), 2 Mac. & G. 247. Lyelly. Kennedy (1889), 14 App. (Z) Heathy. Chilton{l%^^), 12 M. & W. 632; Williams v. Pott (1871), L. E. 12 Eq. 149. Cas. 437 (m) Eamesy.Hacon{l^^), l8Ch.D.347; Z>/xow v.Zrawo72cZ(1819), 2B. & Aid. 310. For his right to inter ) Zulueta v. Vinent (1852), 1 De G. M. & Gr. 315. plead, see p. 200, post. Evans v. Nichol (1841), (o) Henderson & Co. v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 521 (h) ('/)
4 Scott, N. E. 43. (p) Piddle V. Potid (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 Bogers Sons & Co. v. Lamhert & Co., [1891] IQ. B. 318. 19 Ch. D. 86. {q) Biddle v. Bond, supra; Ex parte Bavies, Be Sadler (1881) (r) Shee v. Clarhson (1810), 12 East, 507. (s) But the possession must be as agent {White y. Bayley (1861), 10 C. B. (isr. s.) Marhiuick v. Harding227, and contrast Bell v. Marsh, [1903] 1 Ch. 528 ham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 339). (i;) Lyell V. Kennedy, supra, and compare Ward v. Carttar (1865), L. E. 1 Eq. 29. (a) Williams v. Pott, supra. h) As required by the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) s. 7. See Bochefoucauld V. Boustead, [1897] 1 Ch. 196. (c) See p. 187, ante.
,
,
