— ———
.
Auction and Auctioneers.
514 Paet
yi.
1047. If the auctioneer is made a defendant to an action for performance or rescission {q), he will in general be dismissed from the action on paying the balance of the deposit into Com't after deducting his charges (?•) but he will not be so dismissed if relief be claimed against him personally on some ground other than the mere fact that he holds the deposit, e.g., on the ground of his misconduct at the auction (s).
Interpleader specific
and Payment into Court. Auctioneer defendant
to action on contract.
No
inter-
1048. If two auctioneers claim commission in respect of the sale same property, the purchaser cannot, as a rule, interplead (t).
of the
pleader by purchaser
where two auctioneers claim commission.
Part VII.
—
in
Auctioneer's
Skill
and
2.
Duties in respect of Goods.
Sub -Sect.
reward.
1.
Custody of Goods,
1050. Since the auctioneer is a bailee for reward, he must exercise ordinary care and diligence in keeping the goods intrusted to him(/). Sub-Sect.
Duty to retain till price paid.
Generally.
(e)
Sect.
as bailee for
Duty
1.
1049. An auctioneer, being a person who professes to carry on a business requiring skill and knowledge, must display such skill and knowledge in acting for his vendor as is reasonably to be expected from competent auctioneers, and must follow the course of business ordinarily recognised by custom (a) or prescribed .by statute (6). He will be liable for a breach of any duty in damages, either nominal where no material injury results (c), or substantial and of an amount to compensate the vendor for any actual loss sustained through the negligence of the auctioneer (cZ), or of persons employed by him
Duty
Duties
Relation to the Vendor. Sect.
knowledge.
Rights and
of
2.
Farting with Goods.
1051. In the absence of authority from the vendor, it is the duty the auctioneer not to part with possession of the goods until the {q)
See as to joining auctioneers as defendants in such cases, Earl of Egmont Ch. D. 469. Yates v. Farehrother (1819), 4 Annesley v. Muygridge (1816), 1 Madd. 593
V. ISmith (1877), 6 (r)
Madd.
239.
Beatley v. Newton (1881), 19 Ch. D. 326. Greatorex v. Shackle, [1895] 2 Q. B. 249. (a) Fussell v. Hankey (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12. {h) Coppen v. Moore (No. 2), [1898] 2 Q. B. 306 ; Christie, Hanson and Woods V. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522. (c) HiUert v. Bayley (1860), 2 F. & F. 48. {d) Farker v. Farehrother (1853), 1 0. L. E. 323. (e) Lord North's Case (1558), 2 Dyer, 161 a. (/) See title Bailment, p. 560.. post. The dictum inMalthy v. Christie (1795), 1 Esp. 340, to the effect that an auctioneer is only liable for such care as he would take in the case of his own goods, would not seem on principle to be good law. See Coggs v. Bernard (1704), 2 Ld. Eaym. 909, per Lord Holt, at p. 917. (s) (t)
