— Agency.
216 Sect.
6.
Notice to Agent.
When
principal not
bound
by-
agent's notice.
"When agent a party to fraud.
principal (c2), the principal is precluded, as regards the persons who are parties to such transaction (e), from relying upon his own ignorance of such fact (/), and is taken to have received notice of it from the agent (g) at the time when he should have received it, if the agent had performed his duty with due diligence (h). But in the absence of such duty the principal is not bound by any notice given to, or any knowledge acquired by, the agent, if at the time when the agent received such notice or acquired such knowledge he was not acting as agent on the principal's behalf (i), or was not so acting in respect of the transaction in which the notice or knowledge is material (/i;). Moreover, where the agent, though acting on his principal's behalf in some transaction in which his knowledge would otherwise be imputed to his principal, takes part in any fraud (Z) or misfeasance against the principal, the principal is not bound by the agent's knowledge of such fraud or misfeasance (n).
Sect. Principal's
remedies where agent bribed.
7.
Corruption of Agent.
457. Where a principal has entered into any contract either through the mediation of an agent (o), or directly by himself on the faith of representations made by an agent (p), and it afterwards appears (q) that the other contracting party had made to the agent (?•) a payment or promise of payment in the nature of a (d) Blaclihurn v. Vigors (1887), 12 App. Cas. 531 Bradley v. Biches (1878),, 9 Ch. D. 189. (e) Unless they are aware of the agent's intention not to communicate it {Sharpe v. Foy (1868), 17 W. E. 65). (/) Bawden v. London, Edinhurqh and Glasgoiu Assurance Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 534; Dresser v. Norwood (1864), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 466. (g) Gladstone v. King (1813), 1 M. & S. 35. (h) As by telegram instead of by letter (Pro McZ/ooi V. Montefiore (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B.511). (?) Soa'ete Generale de Paris v. Tramivays Union Go. (1881), 14 Q. B. D. 424; Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner (1880), 14 Ch. D. 406; unless it was part of his duty to communicate such knowledge, however acquired [Re Payne The Co., Young v. Paijne & Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 608, and see note [h), p. 215, ante). same rule applies when the same person is agent for the two contracting parties, and acquires knowledge in his capacity as agent for the one party which he does not communicate to the other {Re Hampshire Land Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 743 ; Re Feniaick, Deep Sea Fishery Co.'s Claim, [1902] 1 Ch. 507). (k) Wyllie v. Pollen, (1863) 32 L. J. (CH.) 782 TateY. Hyslop (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 368 Ex parte Warren (1885), 1 T. L. E. 430. See also Conveyancing Act, 1882 B. 487. (45 & 46 Vict. c. 39) s. 3 (1), and Molyneux v. Haiutrey, [19031 2 WilliamsY. Preston (1882), 20 Ch. D. (/) Cave V. Cave (1880), 15 Ch. D. 639; 672. Otherwise if the fraud is not against the principal {Dixon v. Winchy [1900] 1 Ch. 736; Boursot v. Savage (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 134). (m) Re Fitzroy Bessemer Steel Co. (1884), 50 L. T. 144. (n) But it is not sufficient to show merely that it was to the agent's interest to withhold from his principal the knowledge which he should have communicated {Bradley v. Riches, supra). (o) Panama Telegraph Co. v. Lndia Liuhher Teleqrapjh Works Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App. 515 Hough v. Bolton (1886), 2 T. L. E. 788 Salford Corporation . Lever, [1891] 1 Q. B. 168. Shipiuay v. Broadivood, [1899] 1 Q. B. 369. ( p) {q) Even during the trial of an action on the contract {Shipway v. Broadivood, supra; Hough y. Bolton {1885), 1 T. L. E. 606). (r) If the other contracting party discovers after his promise, but before payment, that the agent is in fact acting as agent for the principal, the payment
&
K
