Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Agency - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 56 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Acraman And Another, Assignees Of Garrett, A Bankrupt v Herniman [1851] EngR 429; (1851) 16 QB 998; (1851) 117 ER 1164
6 May 1851


Insolvency, Agency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lady Beresford v Driver [1851] EngR 754; (1851) 14 Beav 387; (1851) 51 ER 335
31 Jul 1851


Agency
The defendant, the plaintiff's ex-land agent was ordered to deliver up documents to former principal relating to her estate and its management
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lady Beresford v Driver [1852] EngR 650 (A); (1852) 16 Beav 134
1 Jun 1852


Agency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robertson v Wait (1853) 8 Ex 299
1853


Contract, Agency

1 Citers


 
Harington Bart v Hoggart [1854] EngR 785; (1854) 5 Giff 13; (1854) 66 ER 902
29 Jul 1854


AGENCY
An auctioneer who is employed to sell an estate, and who receives a deposit from the purchaser, is a mere stake-holder, liable to be called upon to pay the money at any time ; and, therefore, although he place the money in the funds and make interest of it, he is not liable to pay such interest to the vendor when the purchase is completed ; though the vendor (without the concurrence of the vendee) gave him notice to invest the money in Government securities.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Collen v Wright (1857) 8 B & E 647
1857


Agency
The law of breach of the warranty of authority should be read to imply a remedy to an innocent third party, with whom the agent has purported without authority to make a contract or to reach a settlement of outstanding liabilities under a contract, against the agent.
1 Citers


 
Slack v Crewe [1860] EngR 244; (1860) 2 F & F 59; (1860) 175 ER 958
1860


Agency, Landlord and Tenant
It is doubtful whether an agent to let a house has an implied general authority to let persons into possession, but slight evidence will be sufficient to show an express authority.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Holland v Russell; 13-Jun-1861 - [1861] EngR 728; (1861) 1 B & S 424; (1861) 121 ER 773
 
Holland v Russell [1863] EngR 546; (1863) 4 B & S 14; (1863) 122 ER 365
9 May 1863


Agency, Equity

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Goods Of Sarah Rosser (Deceased) [1864] EngR 619 (A); (1864) 3 Sw & Tr 490
28 Jun 1864


Agency
Renunciation and Consent - Power of Attorney
[ Commonlii ]
 
Edmunds (PO) v Bushell And Jones [1865] EngR 12 (B); (1865) 4 F & F 1044
1865


Agency, Employment

[ Commonlii ]
 
Platzhoff v Lebean [1865] EngR 40 (A); (1865) 4 F & F 545
1865


Agency, Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
De Comas v Prost and Kohler [1865] EngR 311; (1865) 3 Moo PC NS 158; (1865) 16 ER 59; [1865] UKPC 17
13 Mar 1865
PC

Commonwealth, Agency
New South Wales
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Salomons v Pender [1865] EngR 365; (1865) 3 H & C 639; (1865) 159 ER 682
21 Apr 1865

Bramwell B
Agency
When a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, "I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you," he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal.
Bramwell B said: "It is true that . . the defendant has had the benefit (if it be one) of the plaintiff's services. But the defendant is in a position to say, 'What you have done has been done as a volunteer, and does not come within the line of your duties as agent.'" And in the same case Martin B. quoted the passage from Story on Agency, where it is said: "In this connection, also, it seems proper to state another rule, in regard to the duties of agents, which is of general application, and that is, that, in matters touching the agency, agents cannot act so as to bind their principals, where they have an adverse interest in themselves. This rule is founded upon the plain and obvious consideration, that the principal bargains, in the employment, for the exercise of the disinterested skill, diligence, and zeal of the agent, for his own exclusive benefit. It is a confidence necessarily reposed in the agent, that he will act with a sole regard to the interests of his principal, as far as he lawfully may; and even if impartiality could possibly be presumed on the part of an agent, where his own interests were concerned, that is not what the principal bargains for; and in many cases, it is the very last thing which would advance his interests. The seller of an estate must be presumed to be desirous of obtaining as high a price as can fairly be obtained therefor; and the purchaser must equally be presumed to desire to buy it for as low a price as he may."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones v Phipps [1868] LR 2 QB 567
1868
QBD

Landlord and Tenant, Agency
For many years, an agent had, with the authority of his principals, dealt with an estate as his own and negotiated with the tenant as to the terms and continuance of the holding. Held: It was incidental to that authority that he should determine the tenancy by notice to quit. The tenant was not aware of the existence of the agent's principals and considered the agent to be the landlord.
1 Citers


 
Calder v Dobell (1871) LR 6 CP 486
1871


Agency
"an agent who contracts in his own name does not cease to be contractually bound because it is proved that the other party knew when the contract was made that he was acting as agent."
1 Citers


 
Australasian Steam Navigation Co v Morse (1872) LR 4 PC 222
1872
PC
Sir Montague Smith
Agency
Sir Montague Smith: "when by the force of circumstances a man has the duty cast upon him of taking some action for another, and under that obligation, adopts the course which, to the judgment of a wise and prudent man, is apparently the best for the interest of the persons for whom he acts in a given emergency, it may properly be said of the course so taken, that it was, in a mercantile sense, necessary to take it."
1 Citers


 
The Australasian Steam Navigation Company v William Henry Morse And George Philip Morse [1872] EngR 22; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 482; (1872) 17 ER 393
22 Mar 1872
PC

Commonwealth, Transport, Agency
The authority of the Master of a Ship to sell the goods of an absent Owner is derived from the necessity of the situation in which he is placed; and, consequently, to justify his selling, he must establish (1) a necessity for the sale; and (2) inability to communicate with the Owner. Under these conditions, and by force of them, the Master becomes the Agent of the Owner, not only with the power, but under the obligation (within certain limits) of acting for him; but he is not, in any case, entitIed to substitute his own judgment for the will of the Owner, in selling the goods, where it is possible to communicate with the Owner.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hamilton v Dixon 1873 1R 72
1873

Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff
Agency
The court heard an allegation concerning an alleged obligation to deliver pig iron. Held: "it was too plain to require argument that in order to authorise an agent to give away his employer's goods without consideration, direct and immediate sanction to the individual transaction would be necessary."
1 Citers


 
Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch 124
1874
CA
James LJ, Lord Cairns LC
Agency, Company
The directors of a bank acquired for themselves, and made a profit on, certain shares the subject of a new issue that were not taken up by the bank's shareholders. Held: James LJ said: "I do not think it is necessary, but it appears to me very important, that we should concur in laying down again and again the general principle that in this court no agent in the course of his agency, in the matter of his agency, can be allowed to make any profit without the knowledge and consent of his principal; that that rule is an inflexible rule, and must be applied inexorably by this court, which is not entitled, in my judgment, to receive evidence, or suggestion, or argument as to whether the principal did or did not suffer any injury in fact by reason of the dealing of the agent; for the safety of mankind requires that no agent shall be able to put his principal in the danger of such an inquiry as that."
Lord Cairns LC said: 'The Court will not inquire, and is not in a position to ascertain, whether the bank has or has not lost by the acts of the directors. All that the Court has to do is to examine whether a profit has been made by an agent, without the knowledge of his principal, in the course and execution of his agency, and the Court finds, in my opinion, that these agents in the course of their agency have made a profit, and for that profit they must, in my opinion, account to their principal.'
1 Citers



 
 Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield; 1874 - (1874) LR 9 Ex 132
 
Dunne v English (1874) LR 18 Eq 524
1874
CA
Sir George Jessel MR
Equity, Agency, Company
A partner had made a secret profit from the sale of partnership property. Held: The other partner sought and obtained relief "substantially in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of the prayer of the bill", which had sought "a declaration . . that the Plaintiff was entitled to share equally with the Defendant in the profits . . and that the Defendant was bound to make over to the Plaintiff one half of the profits . ." Because of the importance which equity attaches to fiduciary duties, "informed consent" to a fiduciary acting for two parties is only effective if it is given after "full disclosure".
Sir George Jessel MR said of a partner: "The Defendant was not only in law the agent of the partnership to sell (being himself a partner, and every partner being an agent of the partnership), but he was in fact the agent who had been engaged in negotiating the sale."
1 Citers


 
Panama and South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515
1875


Agency
Where his agent has taken a secret commission, the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it provided counter-restitution can be made.
1 Citers



 
 Hollins v Fowler; HL 1875 - (1875) LR 7 HL 757
 
In re Western of Canada Oil, Lands and Works Co, Carling, Hespeler, and Walsh's Cases (1875) 1 Ch D 115
1875
CA
James and Mellish LJJ, Bramwell B and Brett J
Agency
Shares which had been transferred by a person to individuals to induce them to become directors of a company and to agree that the company would buy land from the person, were held by the individuals on trust for the company.
1 Citers


 
In re Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co, McKay's Case (1875) 2 Ch D 1
1875
CA
Mellish and James LJJ and Brett J
Agency, Equity
A company bought a mine, and shares in the vendor were promised to the company's secretary. Held: The shares were held by him for the company beneficially.
1 Citers


 
Bagnall v Carlton (1877) 6 Ch D 371
1877
CA
James, Baggallay and Cotton LJJ
Company, Equity, Agency
Agents for a prospective company who made secret profits out of a contract made by the company were held to be "trustees for the company" of those profits
1 Citers


 
In re Caerphilly Colliery Co, Pearson's Case (1877) 5 Ch D 336
1877
CA
Sir George Jessel MR and James and Baggallay LJJ
Agency
A company director, had received shares from the promoters and then acted for the company in its purchase of a colliery from the promoters. Held: The shares were held on trust for the company.
1 Citers



 
 Drew v Nunn; CA 1879 - (1879) 4 QBD 661; (1879 40 LT 671; (1879 48 LJQB 59

 
 National Mercantile Bank v Rymill; 1881 - (1881) 44 LTNS 767

 
 National Mercantile Bank Ltd v Rymill; CA 1881 - [1881] 44 LTNS 767

 
 Ex parte Moore; 1881 - (1881) 30 WR 123

 
 The Fore Street Warehouse Company Ltd v Durrant and Co; 1883 - (1883) 10 QBD 471
 
West London Commercial Bank v Kitson [1883] 12 QBD 157
1883


Agency

1 Citers


 
Hughes v Percival (1883) 8 App Cas 443; [1881-85] All ER 44; (1883) 8 AC 443
1883

Lord Blackburn
Agency, Vicarious Liability, Negligence
The parties were neighbouring householders with a party wall. A builder working in the defendant's house negligently cut into the party wall, causing the partial collapse of both the defendant's house and the Plaintiff's house next-door. Held: Lord Blackburn said: "The first point to be considered is what was the relation in which the defendant stood to the plaintiff. It was admitted that they were owners of adjoining houses between which was a party-wall the property of both. The defendant pulled down his house and had it rebuilt on a plan which involved in it the tying together of the new building and the party-wall which was between the plaintiff's house and the defendant's, so that if one fell the other would be damaged. The defendant had a right so to utilize the party-wall, for it was his property as well as the plaintiff's; a stranger would not have had such a right. But I think the law cast upon the defendant, when exercising this right, a duty towards the plaintiff. I do not think that duty went so far as to require him absolutely to provide that no damage should come to the plaintiff's wall from the use he thus made of it, but I think that the duty went as far as to require him to see that reasonable skill and care were exercised in those operations which involved a use of the party-wall, exposing it to this risk. If such a duty was cast upon the defendant he could not get rid of responsibility by delegating the performance of it to a third person. He was at liberty to employ such a third person to fulfil the duty which the law cast on himself, and, if they so agreed together, to take an indemnity to himself in case mischief came from that person not fulfilling the duty which the law cast upon the defendant; but the defendant still remained subject to that duty, and liable for the consequences if it was not fulfilled. This is the law I think clearly laid down in Pickard v Smith 10 CB (NS) 470, and finally in (1881) Dalton v Angus 6 App Cas 740. But in all the cases on the subject there was a duty cast by law on the party who was held liable."
1 Citers


 
Re Lewis ex parte Helder (1883) 24 ChD 339
1883
CA
Sir Baliol Brett MR
Insolvency, Agency
An agent, in obedience to a previous instruction of his principal, paid away money of the principal which was in his hands knowing, before he made the payment, that when completed it would constitute an act of bankruptcy on the part of his principal. The principal was afterwards adjudicated bankrupt. Held: The agent was not liable to account to the trustee for the money paid away. The Court did not rely upon the fact that the money was paid away before adjudication which would have been sufficient, but on the fact that the money did not become the trustee's money until the completion of the act of bankruptcy to which his title would relate back, ie. until after the money had left the agent's hands: "It appears to me that on this ground - that the money did not become the trustee's money until the payment had been completed- Mr. Roberts is not liable to the trustee"
1 Citers



 
 Re Chapman ex parte Edwards; CA 1884 - (1884) 13 QBD 747
 
Firbank's Executors v Humphryes (1886) 18 QBD 54
1886
CA
Lord Esher MR
Agency
The plaintiff was induced to enter into a transaction by the someone pretending to be the principal. The defence was that he was the principal's innocent agent. Held: Lord Esher MR discussed the warranty of authority: "The rule to be deduced is, that where a person by asserting that he has the authority of the principle induces another to enter into any transaction which he would not have entered into but for that assertion, and that assertion turns out to be untrue, to the injury of the person to whom it is made, it must be taken that the person making it undertook that it was true, and he is liable personally for the damage that has occurred."
1 Citers


 
Blackburn, Low and Co v Vigors (1886) 17 QBD 553
1886
CA
Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ,
Agency, Insurance, Torts - Other
Lord Esher MR: "This seems to me to be the true doctrine. The freedom from mis-representation or concealment is a condition precedent to the right of the assured to insist on the performance of the contract, so that on a failure of the performance of the condition the assured cannot enforce the contract." Lindley LJ: "It is a condition of the contract that there is no misrepresentation or concealment either by the assured or by anyone who ought as a matter of business and fair dealing to have stated or disclosed the facts to him or to the underwriter for him." Lord Halsbury LC warned against "the somewhat vague use of the word 'agent'" which, he said, "leads to confusion" in insurance cases.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Blackburn, Low and Co v Vigors (1887) 12 App Cas 531
1887
HL
Lord Macnaghten, Lord Watson, Lord Fitzgerald
Agency
There was a condition precedent of full disclosure of material facts in an insurance contract. The duty of an agent to disclose circumstances within his own knowledge to the insurer is independent of the duty of the insured to make disclosure, but: "it would, in my opinion, be a dangerous extension of the doctrine of constructive notice to hold that persons who are themselves absolutely innocent of any concealment or misrepresentation, and who have not wilfully shut their eyes or closed their ears to any means of information, are to be affected with the knowledge of matters which other persons may be morally though not legally bound to communicate to them."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Toulmin v Millar; HL 1887 - (1887) 58 LT 96
 
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) 39 ChD 339
1888
CA
Bowen LJ, Cotton LJ, Fry LJ
Agency, Employment
An employer having dismissed an employee (its managing director) later learnt of the employee's fraud. Held: The employer was allowed to rely upon that fraud to justify the dismissal. Where an agent is in wrongful repudiation of his contract with his principal, he loses his right to claim remuneration from his principal. It is sufficient if there was a fundamental breach of contract justifying a dismissal whether or not the employer knew of it at the time of dismissal. The managing director could not recover his salary for the part of the year which he had completed before his dismissal. His right to his salary was conditional on his fulfilling his duties for the year and that condition had not been fulfilled. The contract was indivisible, and no payment under it could be claimed.
Cotton LJ said: "Then when he was engaged in that contract, in respect of the matters of that very contract, he in one instance got a percentage of 1 per cent. from the Shipbuilding Company, and, in the other case, he insisted on getting - that is the evidence - and did get, a lump sum of £50. It is suggested that we should be laying down new rules of morality and equity if we were to so hold. In my opinion if people have got an idea that such transactions can be properly entered into by an agent, the sooner they are disabused of that idea the better. If a servant, or a managing director, or any person who is authorized to act, and is acting, for another in the matter of any contract, receives, as regards the contract, any sum, whether by way of percentage or otherwise, from the person with whom he is dealing on behalf of his principal, he is committing a breach of duty. It is not an honest act, and, in my opinion, it is a sufficient act to shew that he cannot be trusted to perform the duties which he has undertaken as servant or agent. He puts himself in such a position that he has a temptation not faithfully to perform his duty to his employer. He has a temptation, especially where he is getting a percentage on expenditure, not to cut down the expenditure, but to let it be increased, so that his percentage may be larger. I do not, however, rely on that, but what I say is this, that where an agent entering into a contract on behalf of his principal, and without the knowledge or assent of that principal, receives money from the person with whom he is dealing, he is doing a wrongful act, he is misconducting himself as regards his agency, and, in my opinion, that gives to his employer, whether a company or an individual, and whether the agent be a servant, or a managing director, power and authority to dismiss him from his employment as a person who by that act is shewn to be incompetent of faithfully discharging his duty to his principal."
Bowen LJ said: "This is an age, I may say, when a large portion of the commercial world makes its livelihood by earning, and by earning honestly, agency commission on sales or other transactions, but it is also a time when a large portion of those who move within the ambit of the commercial world, earn, I am afraid, commission dishonestly by taking commissions not merely from their masters, but from the other parties with whom their master is negotiating, and with whom they are dealing on behalf of their master, and taking such commissions without the knowledge of their master or principal. There never, therefore, was a time in the history of our law when it was more essential that Courts of Justice should draw with precision and firmness the line of demarcation which prevails between commissions which may be honestly received and kept, and commissions taken behind the master's back, and in fraud of the master. . . Now, there can be no question that an agent employed by a principal or master to do business with another, who, unknown to that principal or master, takes from that other person a profit arising out of the business which he is employed to transact, is doing a wrongful act inconsistent with his duty towards his master, and the continuance of confidence between them. He does the wrongful act whether such profit be given to him in return for services which he actually performs for the third party, or whether it be given to him for his supposed influence, or whether it be given to him on any other ground at all; if it is a profit which arises out of the transaction, it belongs to his master, and the agent or servant has no right to take it, or keep it, or bargain for it, or to receive it without bargain, unless his master knows it.
Fry LJ said: "In my judgment, the conduct of Ansell in so dealing was a fraud—a fraud on his principals—a fraud, not according to any artificial or technical rules, but according to the simple dictates of conscience, and according to the broad principles of morality and law, and I think it is the duty of the Courts to uphold those broad principles in all cases of this description.
We were invited to consider the state of mind of Mr. Ansell; whether he thought it wrong; in other words we are invited to take as the standard for our decision the alleged conscience of a fraudulent servant. I decline to accept any such rule as one on which the Court is to decide such questions."
1 Citers


 
Eden v Ridsdale Railway Lamp and Lighting Co Ltd (1889) 23 QBD 368
1889
CA
Lord Esher MR and Lindley and Lopes LJJ
Company, Agency, Equity
The company was held to be entitled as against a director to shares which he had secretly received from a person with whom the company was negotiating.
1 Citers


 
Lyell v Kennedy (1889) 14 App Cas 437
1889
HL

Equity, Agency
The true owner may recover money which was rightfully his from a person to whom the money in question had been wrongly paid by the collector of the money. A fiduciary is one who has undertaken, whether on request or without request, of his own motion to act on behalf of another in circumstances in which equity will not allow him ‘to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect’.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Doward, Dickson and Co v Williams and Co (1890) 6 TLR 316
1890


Agency
Where an agent's only interest is a commercial interest in being able to earn his commission, his power of attorney is not secured and is revocable, because the authority is not properly speaking a security at all.
1 Citers



 
 Barker v Furlong; 1891 - [1891] 2 CH 172
 
Irrawaddy Flotilla Company Limited v Bugwandass [1891] UKPC 23
4 Jul 1891
PC

Transport, Agency
(Rangoon) The Board considered the liability of common carriers to insure goods entrusted to them.
[ Bailii ]
 
Consolidated Co v Curtis and Son (1892) 1 QB 495
1892
QBD

Torts - Other, Agency
An auctioneer who sold and delivered goods the subject of a bill of sale. An auctioneer who sells and delivers is liable in conversion because he is acting as more than a mere broker or intermediary. Held: It is not easy to draw the line at the precise point where a dealing with goods by an intermediary becomes a conversion. The difficulty is diminished by remembering that in trover the original possession was by a fiction deemed to be lawful … and some act had therefore to be shown constituting a conversion by the defendant of the chattel to his own use, some act incompatible with a recognition on his part of the continuous right of the true owner to the dominion over it. All acts which are consistent with the duty of a mere finder such as the safeguarding by warehousing or asportation for the like purpose, may well be looked upon as entirely compatible with the right of the true owner, and, therefore, as not constituting a conversion by the defendant. The test may be whether there is an intent to interfere in any manner with the title of or ownership in the chattel, not merely with the possession. The difficulty is rather in drawing the true inference from facts in particular cases than in grasping the principle. There can be no conversion by a mere bargain and sale without a transfer of possession. The act, unless in market overt, is merely void, and does not change the property or the possession: Lancashire Wagon Co. v Fitzhugh A fortiori, mere intervention as broker or intermediary in a sale by others is not a conversion.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Mullens v Miller [1892] 22 Ch D 194
1892


Contract, Agency
Where an agent enters into a contract on behalf of a principal and the opposite party has been induced to enter into it by an innocent misrepresentation by the agent, the opposite party is entitled to rescission provided that the making of a representation of that kind was within the actual or apparent authority of the agent.
1 Citers



 
 Bryant Powis and Bryant v La Banque du Peuple; PC 1893 - [1893] AC 170

 
 Ultzen v Nicols; 1894 - [1894] 1 QB 92; (1894) 63 LJ QB 829; (1894) 70 LT 140; (1894) 10 TLR 25; (1894) 28 Sol Jo 26; (1894) 10 R 13 DC
 
Pape v Westacott [1894] 1 QB 272
1894


Agency
The landlord's agent, in breach of his authority, released a licence to assign a lease taking a cheque (instead of cash) for the outstanding rent due from the existing tenant. This took place in the presence of the assignee, who did not however know of the excess of authority. Held: The court dismissed a suggestion that the landlord could still have distrained against the assignee. The agent had as far as the assignee was concerned been held out as acting with authority, but the agent was liable to the landlord for exceeding his authority.
1 Citers


 
Gaskell v Gosling [1896] 1 QB 669
1896
CA
Rigby LJ (dissenting)
Agency, Land
The agency of a receiver for the mortgagor is one where the principal, the mortgagor, has no say in the appointment or identity of the receiver and is not entitled to give any instructions to the receiver or to dismiss the receiver. "For valuable consideration he has committed the management of his property to an attorney whose appointment he cannot interfere with" and "a receiver and manager appointed by a mortgagee under an agreement that he shall be the agent of the mortgagor is in the same position as if appointed by the mortgagor himself, and as if every direction given to him emanated from the mortgagor himself."
. . And "The following results seem to follow from the principles already states : (a) that creditors cannot be made responsible for the liabilities of a business carried on for the purpose, among others, of securing and paying their debts, even though they may have considerable control: . . (b) that a receiver and manager appointed by a mortgagee under an agreement that he shall be the agent of the mortgagor is in the same position as if appointed by the mortgagor himself, and as if every direction given to him emanated from the mortgagor himself : . . (c) that a mortgagee is not made a mortgagee in possession by such an appointment, and would not be even if the mortgagor appointed him to receive income."
Law of Property Act 1925 109
1 Citers


 
Re Hampshire Land Company [1896] 2 Ch 743
1896

Vaughan Williams J, Viscount Dunedin
Agency, Company
A company had borrowed from a building society. The borrowing was not properly authorised by resolution of the shareholders in general meeting The court was asked whether whether the knowledge of the company secretary common to both the company and the society, as to the irregularity should be imputed to the society, so as to preclude the society from recovering the loan. Held: The rule of law that information held by an agent in the course of his agency is to be imputed to his principal, has an exception where the agent is committing a fraud on his principal.
Vaughan Williams J said: "The case is very much more like the one which [counsel for the society] had to admit was an exception to the general rule that they sought to lay down, for they admitted that if Wills had been guilty of a fraud, the personal knowledge of Wills of the fraud that had had committed upon the company would not have been knowledge of the society of the facts constituting that fraud; because common sense at once leads one to the conclusion that it would be impossible to infer that the duty, either of giving or receiving notice, will be fulfilled where the common agent is himself guilty of fraud. It seems to me that if you assume here that Mr. Wills was guilty of irregularity - a breach of duty in respect of these transactions - the same inference is to be drawn as if he had been guilty of fraud. I do not know, I am sure, whether he was guilty of actual fraud; but whether his conduct amounted to fraud or to breach of duty, I decline to hold that his knowledge of his own fraud or of his own breach of duty is, under the circumstances, the knowledge of the company."
1 Citers


 
(In re Hannan's Empress Gold Mining and Development Co (Carmichael's Case) [1896] 2 Ch 643
1896


Agency, Company
A power of attorney was held to be irrevocable when conferred on the promoter of a public share offering to subscribe for shares
1 Citers


 
Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369
1899

Chitty LJ
Agency
Where an agent takes a secret commission, "the real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it"
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.