—
——
——
Relations between Peincipal and Agent.
Part VIII.
Court of equity to pay over the money, he becomes liable to attachment, even though he has parted with the money or become bankrapt or insolvent Site-Sect.
{d)
As
9.
410.
Sect.
2.
Rights of Principal against
.
to the
Ads and
Defaults of Co-agents and Sub-agents.
under no responsibility
x
agent is
193
to his principal for the
Agent. co-agents
his co-agents, except where they are his partners (/), unless he expressly or tacitly authorised such acts or defaults (g). But he is liable for the acts (li) and defaults {i) of his sub-agents Sub-agents, even though their employment was authorised by his principal (/c), and he must account to his principal for all moneys received by them (Q. acts
or defaults
{e)
Sect.
3.
of
Rights oj Agent against Principal, Sub-Sect.
In General.
1.
411. Most of the rights of an agent against his principal depend upon the principle that the agent, being a mere representative of his principal, and acting wholly on the latter's behalf, is not expected to incur any liabihties or suffer any losses other than those contemplated by him when he undertook the agency, or prescribed by the contract between them {ni). Sub-Sect.
2.
indemnity ^l^^^ftjeg ^ot
contemplated,
Remuneration.
412. An
agent has no right to receive remuneration from his No right principal unless there be a contract, express or implied, to that ^Q^jJacT'^^ Where the parties have made an express contract for YiYieveconeffect 00 remuneration, the amount of remuneration and the conditions under tract express, which it will become payable must be ascertained by reference to the terms of that contract no implied contract can be set up to add to or vary such terms (o). .
Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 62), s. 4 (3); Crowther v. Elgood and see title Contempt and Attachment. Per the 34 Ch. D. 691 criminal liability of an agent who misappropriates his principal's money or property, see the LarcenyAct, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), ss. 77 79, and the Larceny (rf)
(1887),
Act, 1901 (e)
(1
Lucas
Edw. v.
7, c. 10), title
Criminal
Law and
Fitzgerald (1903), 20 T. L. R. 16;
—
Pkocedure.
Land
Credit
Co.
of Ireland
Lord Fermoij (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763; CuUerne v. Londonand Suburban General Permanent Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485. (/) See Hamlyn v. Houston & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 81. V.
Cargill v. Loiuer (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502. Be Mutual Aid Perinanent Benefit Building Society, Ex parte James (1883), 49 L. T. 530; Siuire v. Francis (1877), 3 App. Cas. 106. Collins V. Griffin (1734), Barnes, 37; Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars & Co., (•/) (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818. (Jc) Skinner & Co. v. Weguelin Fddoiues & Co. (1882), 1 Cab. El. 12. {g)
(/()
&
Matthews
Haydon
Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars (1796), 2 Esp. 509 Co., 8ux>ra; Re Mitchell (1884), 54 L. J. (CH.) 342. (???) See the following sub-sections, and in particular sub-sects. 2 and 3. (/)
v.
1 F. & F. 280 and compare Taylor v. Brewer (1813), with Bryant v. Flight (1839), 5 M. & W. 114. No barrister can make a binding contract for remuneration in respect of professional services {Kennedy v. Broun (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 677) see title Barristers. [o) Burnett Y. Isaacson {1888), Greeny. Mules {ISCA), 'SO 4 T. L. E. 645 L. J. (c. p.)^343 Alder v. Boyle (1847), 4 C. B. 635 Lett v. Outhwaite (1893), 10 T. L. E. 76. But the contract may be interpreted by reference to usages which are not inconsistent with it. See p. 182, ante. (i?)
1
Reeve v. Reeve (1858),
M. &
S. _290,
H.L.— I.
O
