—
I
—
—
Relations between Agent and Third Persons.
Part X.
notwithstanding that the act was expressly authorised or ratified by the principal (n), unless it was thereby deprived of its wrongful It is immaterial that the agent did the act innocently character (o) and without knowledge that it was wrongful (p), except in cases where actual malice is essential to constitute the wrong (q). .
Any
agent who, while acting on his principal's behalf, actual or constructive (?•) possession of goods (s) or securities (t) which are not in fact the property of his principal, and deals with them in any manner which is obviously wrongful if his principal is not their owner (a) or duly authorised by their owner or otherwise as by selling and delivering them to a stranger purporting to dispose of the property in them (c) is guilty of a conversion (^/), and is liable to their true owner for their value. His liability is not affected by the fact that he received them in good faith as the property of his principal, and dealt with them in accordance with his principal's instructions and in ignorance of the true owner's claim (e), unless the true owner is estopped from denying the principal's authority to dispose of them (/), or unless the agent is a banker receiving payment (g) of a crossed {h) cheque (i) on behalf of a customer (k).
471.
acquires the
—
Be National Funds Assurance Co. (1878), 10 Ch. D. 118; OuUen v. Thomson's Trustees (1862), 4 Macq. 424, H. L. (n) Johnson v. Emerson (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 329. (o) HuUy. Pickersgill (1819), 1 Bred. & Bing. 282; Anderson v. Watson (1827), 3 C. & P. 2 14 Sijhes v. Sykes (1870), L. R. o C. P. 1 13 and contrast Sharland v. Mildon The Crown can ratify (1846), 5 Hare, 469 Padgetv. Priest (1787), 2 TermEep. 97. the wrongful act of a public agent as against a foreigner {Buron v. Penman (1848), 2 Exch. 167; Salamany. Secretary of State for India, [1906] IK. B. 613), but not
K. B. 772
as against a British subject {Eniick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Trials, 1030. (p) Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73. [q] Eaglesfield v. londonderry (1878), 38 L. T. 303. (r) Union Credit Bank v. Mersey Pocks and Harbour Board, [1899] 2 Q,. B. 205. (s) Consolidated Co. v. Curtis, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 ; Cochrane v. Bymill (1879), 40 L. T. 744; Hollins v. Foiuler (1874), L. E. 7 H. L. 757; Stephens v. Elwall (1815), 4 M. & S. 259. (t) Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co., [1901] A. C. 414 ; Arnold v. Cheque Bank (1876), 1 C. P. D. 578 ; Fine Art Society v. Union Bank (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 705. (a) McEntire v. Potter (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 438, per Cave, J., at p. 441. [h) Consolidated Co. y. Curtis, supra; Cochrane y. Bymill, supra; Hollins v. Foiuler, supra. (c)
McEntire
{1837), 6 A.
&
v. Potter,
supra ; Stephens
v.
Ehuall, supra
Pearson
v.
Graham
E. 899.
Eor the meaning of conversion, see title Trover and Conversiois'. See cases in notes (r) (d), supra. If) As where the principal is a mercantile agent, or buyer or seller in possession of goods or the documents of title thereto with the consent of the true owner (Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), ss. 2, 8, and 9; Sale of Goods Act, 1893 Shenstone v. Hilton, [1894] 2 Q.. B. 452). (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 25 (1) and (2) {g) Eor the meaning of receiving payment, see Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), s. 1 title Bankers and Banking. (A) The cheque must be crossed before it reaches the banker (^Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240). {i) But not of any other instrument {Bavins v. London and South Western ^aw/c, [1900] 1 B. 270). {k) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 82; and see Great Western Rail. Co. y. London and County Banking Co., supra. See further on this point title Bankers and Banking. (d)
(e)
a
H.L.
—
Q
•225
Sect.
i.
Liabilities
of Agent,
Conversion,
