—
.
Part YIII.
—Relations
between Principal and Agent.
197
Sect. 3. The right of indemnity covers not merely the losses actually Rights of sustained by the agent, bat also the full amount of the liabilities Agent incurred by him, even though they may never in fact be enforced (s), and extends to cases where they were incurred under an honest ^^^^^ mistake of judgment {t). It is immaterial whether or not the agent professed to be acting on his principal's behalf, if he was so in Extent of
fact
indemnity.
(^f).
Where an agent
is
employed
market or at Where reimbursement Increase^d by
to deal in a particular
a particular place, he may acquire wider rights of and indemnity than he would otherwise have, in consequence of the local usages, Such usages are usages of the particular market or place (b). binding on the principal, even though unknown to him, if they are reasonable (c), but not if they are unreasonable (d), unless his knowledge of them be proved {e). The agent may enforce his rights of reimbursement and How right indemnity by action (/), or by the exercise of his lien (g), and, if e^fo'^ced. he is sued by the principal {li), he may assert them by way of set-off (0-
418. An agent is not entitled to reimbursement or indemnity in Liabilities to respect of expenses or liabilities incurred in consequence of his own ^Q^g^^^J^^^^ default {k) or breach of duty (l), or arising out of gaming or wagering extend, transactions {m), or transactions which are known to be unlawful (n), or which are outside the scope of his authority and have not been ratified
by his principal
(o)
Sub-Sect.
Agent's Lien.
4.
419. Every agent has a lien on the goods and chattels of his For what principal in respect of all claims against the principal [p) arising ^^s^en^^^^ Claim (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 182. Hall (1859), 7 C. B. (n. S.) 503; Pettman v. /fe&^e (1850), 9 0. B. 701. (a) Ex parte Bishop, Re Fox (1880), 15 Ch. D. 400; Ex ])arte Rogers, Re Rogers {mO), 15 Ch. D. 207. (b) Baijh'fe v. Butterworth (1847), 1 Exch. 425. See also p. 182, ante, and for the usages of the Stock Exchange, see title Stock Exchange. (c) Reynolds v. ISmith (1893), 9 T. L. E. 494; Chapman v. Shepherd (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 228, per Willes, J., at p. 239. {d) Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388. (e) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460. (/) See the various cases cited in notes to this sub-section. {g) See pp. 198, 199, post. (A) Or by anyone claiming through the principal {Cropper v. Crook (1868) L. E. 3 C. P. 194). (/) Curtis V. Barclay (1826), 5 B. & C. 141. (A^) Lewis V. Samuel (1846), 8 Q. B. 685 Duncan v. Hill (1873), L. E. 8 Exch. (.s)
Lacey
{t)
Broom
v. Hill, Croiuleifs v.
2x2. V. Pond, [18981 (/) Ellis Thomas v. Atherton (1878), 10 1 Q. B. 426; Ch. D. 185. (m) Gaming Act, 1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), s. 1 Tatam v. Reeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44. {n) Josephs v. Pehrer (1825), 3 B. & C. 639 Ex parte Mather (1797), 3 Ves.
373 Warwick v. Slade (1811), 3 Camp. 127. But otherwise where the agent is unaware that the transaction is unlawful [Adamson v. Jarvis (1827), 4 Bing. 66), or where the transaction in respect of which the indemnity is claimed is distinct from the unlawful one [Smith v. Lindo (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 587). (o) Bowlhy V. Bell and contrast Hartas v. Ribbons (1889), (1846), 3 C. B. 284 22 Q,. B. D. 254 Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Marshall, [1906] A. C. 559. {p) Including those that are statute -barred {Spears v. Hartly (1800), 3 Esp. 81).
