Agency.
224 Sect.
and the assent is communicated to the third person (a) he enters into an unconditional undertaking (b) to pay the money to the third person or to hold it on his behalf (c). In this case he is not discharged from liability by the subsequent bankruptcy of the principal {d), or the purported revocation of his authority to pay (e). It, however, the direction is not a mere authority to make the payment (/), but amounts to an assignment of a specific fund, or a charge upon it {g), the agent, upon receiving notice of the assignment or charge, becomes liable to the third person for the amount due to him thereunder. But the agent is not deprived thereby of any right of lien or set-off which accrued before he received such notice (/i). to the direction,
1.
,
Liabilities
of Agent.
Direction
amounting
to
assignment or charge.
or
if
Sub-Sect. 4:.—For Torts. Liability .generally.
470. Any
agent, including a public agent (i), who commits a wrongful act (/c) in the course of his employment, is personally liable (l) to any third person who suffers loss or damage thereby (m), (a)
Walker
v.
Bostron (1842), 9
M. & W. 411
H. & N. 225;
Lilly v. Haijs Weatherhj (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 753.
(1860),
5
(1836),
NoUe 5
v.
A.
National Discount Co. E. 548; Griffin v.
&
(b) BrindY. Hampshire (1836), 1 M. & W. 365, per Parke, B., at p. 372; Malcolm v. Scott (1850), 5 Exch. 601. Williams v. Everett (1811), 14 (c) Crowfoot V. Ourney (1832), 9 Bing. 372 Scott v. Porcher (1817), 3 Mer. 652. But if the undertaking to pay East, 582 was subject to a condition, the condition must have been accepted by the third person (Baron v. Husband (1838), 4 B. & Ad. 611), and must have been fulfilled If the condition is to pay when the money (Stevens v. Hill (1805), 5 Esp. 247). is received from the principal, the agent is only liable for the amount which he
actually receives (Langston v. Corney (1815), 4 Camp. 176). (d) Crowfoot N. Ourney, supra; WcdherY, Bostron, supra. (e) Bobertson v, Faurdleroy (1823), 8 Moo. C. P. 10. (/) Ex parte Hall, Be Whitting (1878), 10 Ch. D. 615. BodicJc v. Oandell (1851), 1 (g) Brandt v. Dunlop Bubber Co., [1905] A. C. 454 De G. M. & G. 763. Boxburghe v. Cox (1881), 17 Ch. D. (h) Webb V. Smith (1885), 30 Ch. D. 192 520. See, further, title Choses in Action. (i) Entich v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Trials, 1030; Siiiclair y Broughton (1882), 47 L. T. 170, and see Dixon v. London Small Arms Co. (1876), 1 App. But he must not be sued in his official capacity (Bainbridge v. PostCas. 632. master-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 178 Baleigh v. Goschen, [1898] 1 Ch. 73). No action can be brought in this country against the agent of a foreign Government, though a British subject, for any act done by him abroad under the authority of his Government, notwithstanding that such act is expressly prohibited by English law (Dobree v. Napier (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 781; and see Carr v. Fracis Times & Co., [1902] A. C. 176). Ck) As to what acts of the agent are sufficient to impose liability, contrast Adair Y. Young (1879), 12 Ch. D. 13, with Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones (1882), 8 App. Oas. 5. But the act must be his personal act, and he is not liable for the acts of his co-agents (Be Denham (1883), 25 Ch. D. 752) or sub- agents (Sto7ie v. Cartwright (1795), 6 Term Eep. 411), unless he is a partner ( TP'eir v. Bell (ISIS), 3 Ex. D. 238, per Bramwell, L.J., at p 244), or has otherwise made himself a principal in the transaction (Cargill v. Bower (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502, per Ery, J., at p. 514 Weir v. Bell, supra, 'per CocKBTJRN, C.J., at p. 249), or unless he is made liable by statute, as under the Directors' Liability Act, 1890 (53 & 54 B. 197). Yict. c. 64) (Cerson v. Simpjson, [1903] 2 (I) But he cannot be sued if judgment has been obtained against the principal. See BrinsmeadY. Harrison (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 547. (m) Bennett v. Bayes (1860), 5 H. & N. 391 ; Arnot v. Biscoe (1748), 1 Ves. Sen. S4; Swift V. Jeiusbury (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 301; Lowe y. Dorling, [1906] 2
.
K
