— Part VIII.
—
Relations between Principal and Agent.
principal (//) provided that, when the had no notice of any such defects (li).
422. An agent
attached, the
lien
,
agent
199 Sect.
3.
Rights of
hy parting with the possession of the time of parting with them he reserves
loses his lien
Ag6Ilt against
the goods (0, unless at Principal, expressly or hy implication his right of lien (k), or they are obtained Loss of lien. from him by fraud or other unlawful means (I). He may also, whilst of the goods, lose his lien by dealing with any way which is inconsistent with its continuance (7?i), or by entering into any agreement {n), or doing any act (o) which necessarily implies its abandonment. But it is not lost by any act
remaining in possession
them
in
of the principal after
it
has attached (p).
423. A sub-agent has, in general, no right of lien against the Lien of subBut if he is employed with the authority of ^s^nt. principal as such (q). the principal, and at the time when the right attaches he is unaware of the existence of a principal, he has the same right of lien against him as he would have had if the agent employing him had been the principal (/) and though aware of the principal's existence, he has a similar right of lien against him in respect of claims arising out of the transaction in which he was employed as sub-agent, notwithstanding any settlement between principal and agent (s) but his general lien (if any) is co-extensive with the actual rights of the agent in that behalf, and no wider (a).
Sub-Sect.
5.
Agent's Right of Stoppage in Transit.
an agent has bought goods on behalf of his principal, own money (6), or under such circumstances as to incur a personal liability towards the seller for the price (c), he
424.
If
either with his
Bank of New South Wales v. ((/) Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 Gl. & P. 787 Goulhurn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary [1902] A. C. 543 Jones v. Peppercor7ie and compare London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. 0. (1858), John. 430 201 Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 658. [h) Solomons v. Bank of England (1791), 13 East, 135; Jeffryes v. Agra and Masterman's Bank (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 674. Sweet V. Pym (1800), 1 East, 4. (?:) [k) Watson v. Lyon (1855), 7 De G. M. & G". 288 North Western Bank v. Poynter, [1895] A. 0. 56. (/) Picas V. StocJdey (1836), 7 C. & P. 587; Wallace v. Woodgate (1824), Ey. & M.
,
193.
(w) Weeks Bing. 130.
v.
Goode (1859), 6 0. B.
(n. s.)
367; Jacohs v. Latour (1828), 5
The Rainlow (1885), 53 L. T. 91. Re Taylor, Stilemanand Underwood, [1891] 1 Ch. 590. But the mere taking of security is not by itself sufficient [Angus v. McLachlan (1883), 23 Ch. D. 330). West of E)igland {p) Godin V. London Assurance Co. (1758), 1 Wm. Bl. 103 Bank v. Batchelor (1882), 51 L. J. (ch.) 199. Nor is it affected by the subsequent bankruptcy of the principal {Rohso7i v. Kemp (1802), 4 Esp. 233; Re Capital Eire Lnsurance Association, Ex parte Beall (1883), 24 Ch. D. 408). [q) Solly V. Rathhone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298. in) (o)
(s)
Mann v. Kymer (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 320 New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. Watson
Taylor
(r)
Camp.
60;
Fisher v. Smith (1878), 4 App. Cas.
1
Mildred Y. Maspons (1883), 8 App. Cas. 874; (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 262. (&) Jenkyns Y. Broiun (1849), 14 Q. B. 496. (a)
(c)
As
to this, see p. 2i9, post.
v. Forrester (1814), 4 (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 374.
Ex parte Edwards, Re
Johnson
Stoppage in
