——
Agency.
200 Sect.
3.
Rights of
Agent
stands towards his principal in the position of an unpaid seller {d), and on delivery to a carrier for transmission to the principal^ possesses the same rights of stoppage in transit (e).
against Principal.
Eight to interplead.
Where
right
exists.
Sub-Sect.
425. Where an agent is, by virtue of his agency, in possession any money, goods or chattels (/), to which conflicting claims are made by his principal and a third person, he may, notwithstanding his agency (g), interplead (li), even though he has expressly attorned to his principal (i), provided that, at the time of so attorning, he had no notice of the third party's claim (k). But he must stand in a position of real impartiality between the claimants (/), and therefore he must not collude with either (m)^ nor claim any interest in the subject-matter except for his costs and charges (n). A claim of lien in respect of the latter does not oust him from his right (o). But he cannot interplead, if he claim any further lien or interest (p), nor can he interplead where one of the claimants claims unliquidated damages {q). of
Sub-Sect. Agent's right to account.
Inteiyleader hy Agent.
6.
As
7.
to
an Account.
426. An agent has a right
to have an account taken, and unless accounts are of a complicated nature they will be taken in an ordinary action in the King's Bench Division (?•).
^.j^g
Wray
(d) Feise v.
Fcdk v. Fletcher (LS65), 18 C. B. {n. s.) (1802), 3 East, 93 v. Gihh (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 191, per Brett, M.E.,
403; and see Cassahoglou at pp. 803, 804. (e)
p.
Ireland v. Livingston (1872), L, E. 5 H. L, 395, j)er Blackburn, J., at Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine Locks Co. (1877), 5 Oh. D.
408
195.
See, further, title
Sale of Goods.
/) Including things in action {Robinson v. Jenkins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 275). g) Ex parte Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546; Attenhorough v. London and St. Katharine's Lock Co. (1878), 3 C. P. D. 450 Tanner V. European Bank (1866), L E. 1 Exch. 261.
h) i)
Under
11. S.
Ex parte
C, Ord. 57
and
see title
Interpleader.
Mersey Locks and Harbour Board, supra,
Compare Ex parte Lavies, Be Sadler (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86. 3Iurietta v. South American etc. Co. (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 396. (m) E. S. C, Ord. 57, r. 2 (b). It is collusion to agree with one claimant to do what the agent legally can to defeat the other [Murietta v. South American etc. Co., supra), or to take an indemnity from one of them {Tucker v. Morris (1832), 1 Or. & M. 73), though the party giving the indemnity cannot raise this objection {k) (/)
{ThompsouY. Wright
(1884), 13 Q. B.
D.
632).
C, Ord. 57, r. 2 (a) Best v. Heyes (1862), 3 F. & F. 113. (o) Cotter V. Bank of England (1833), 3 Moo. & S. 180 Attenborough London and St. Katharine's Lock Co., supra, per Bramwell, L.J., at p. 454. {p) Mitchell V. Hayne (1824), 2 Sim. & St. 63. Iq) Ingham v. Walker (1887), 3 T. L. E. 448. E. S.
{r)
Padunck
v.
Hurst (1854), 18 Beav. 575
29 L. J. (cH.) 521.
Harrington
v.
v.
Churchiuard (1860),
