.
Agency.
198 Sect.
3.
Rights of
Agent against Principal.
Lien generally a particular lien.
Possession necessary.
out of his employment, whether for remuneration earned, or for expenses or liabilities incurred, except where the right of lien is inconsistent wdth the contract between the parties (q), or with the special purpose for which the goods or chattels were intrusted to
him (?) The lien
of an agent is, as a rule, a particular lien, confined to such claims as arise in connection with the goods and chattels in But he may be given a respect of which the right is claimed (s). general lien, extending to all claims arising out of the agency, either by express contract or by usage {t).
420. To enable an agent in his possession, actual
{a)
to exercise his lien, the goods or constructive (b).
must be
The possession must have been acquired without breach of duty {c), and the agent must hold the goods by virtue of the same agency as that under which he claims the ien(d). The lien, even if created by an express contract, is subject to the reputed ownership clause of the Bankruptcy Act, if the goods are in the order and disposition of the principal, though in the custody of the agent (e). Lien affecting third parties.
421. As against third persons, the agent cannot, by the exercise
them of their existing rights in respect of the goods, except in so far as the principal could have done so (/). But an agent's lien on negotiable instruments and money intrusted to him is absolute, notwithstanding any defects in the title of the of his lien, deprive
Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking ((/) He Bowes (1886), 33 Cli. D. 586 Co. (1886), 54 L. T. 746 ; but the inconsistency must be clear [Fisher v. Smith
App. Cas. 1). Brandao v. Barnett
(1878), 4 (r)
(1846),
12 CI.
&
F. 787
Burn
v.
Broiun (1817), 2
Stark. 272.
Gorrissen (1861), 30 L. J. (CH.) 39 and see Williams v. Millington BI. 81. [t) But there is no lien in respect of claims accruing before the agency began (Houghton v. Matthews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485). general lien is possessed by factors [Baring v. Carrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137, per HoLEOYD, J., at p. 148 Hammonds y. Barclay (1802), 2 East, 227) and by bankers (London Chartered Bank of Australia v. White (1879), 4 App. Oas. 413), insurance brokers (ilftm?i v. Forrester (1814), 4 Camp. 60), solicitors (Re Broomhead (1847), 5 Dow. & L. 52), and stockbrokers (Be London and Glohe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch, 416), for which see titles Bankers and Banking, Insurance, Solicitoes, and Stock Exchange respectively. (a) Bidqivay v. Lees (1856), 25 L. J. (cH.) 584 Liinloch v. Craig (1790), 3 Term
Bock
(s)
(1788), 1
V.
Hy.
A
'
Eep. 783. (h) Bryans v. Nix (1839), 4 M. & W. 775. (c) Walsh V. Provan Madden (1853), 8 Exch. 843 Camp. 12. (d) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 554; Dixon
.
v.
v.
Kempster (1807),
1
Stansfeld (1850), 10
C. B. 398.
1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44 (iii.) (e) Bankruptcy Act, Hoggard v. Mackenzie (1858), 25 Beav. 493. See title Bankeuptcy and Insolvency. (/) Compare Brwaton v. Electrical Engineering Corporation, [1892] 1 Ch. 434, with. Re Capital Fire Lnsurance Association, Ex parte Beall (1883), 24 Ch. D. 408 and see Turner v. Letts (1855), 20 Beav. 185. But where the principal's disability to do so depends not upon the nature, but upon the circumstances, of the particular case, the agent can exercise his lien, unless he has notice of the circumstances; see London and County Banking Co., Ltd. v. Ratcliffe (1881), 6 App. Cas. -722 Barry v. Longmore (1840), 12 A. & E. 639 Copland v. Stein (1799), 8 Term Eep. 199 and the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, c. 52), s. 49.
