It was held that no action would lie against a barrister for

negligence and non-attendance at a trial,

2, An agent must never place himself in such a position

as tends to cause his own and his employer's interests to

conflict.

(a) The agent must not turn himself into a principal as

against his principal, without the latter's knowledge and

consent. Thus, in Story on Agency (9tli ed. sect. 211),

We find the following proposition : "It is well settled (to

Illustrate the general rule) that an agent employed to

sell cannot himself become the purchaser; and an agent

employed to buy cannot himself be the seller."

Sharman v. Brandt (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 720; here it

was laid down that if a man employs a broker to buy

42 The law of agency.

goods for him at a certain price, the broker cannot under

such an authority make himself a principal in the contract

of sale and purchase.

Mollett V. Rohiihsun (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 802; here

the defendant, who was a Liverpool merchant, commis-

sioned the plaintiff as broker to buy certain tallow for

him in London ; the plaintiff having other commissions to

execute (in accordance with a custom of the London tallow

market), bought in his own name a larger quantity of

tallow than the defendant had ordered, out of which he

appropriated to the defendant the amount which the latter

had commissioned him to buy. The defendant refused to

accept the tallow from the plaintiff; whereupon the plaintiff

brought an action against him. The House of Lords held

that no action was maintainable against the defendant;

seeing that the defendant could not be bound by a custom

of the London tallow market, which was of such a nature

as to entirely change the character of a broker, and to

convert him from an agent to buy for his employer, into

a principal to sell to him, unless the defendant was proved

to have known of, and assented to, such a custom.

Dunne v. Enfjllsh (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 524; here

Jessel, M.R., said ; " He (defendant) was not merely a

theoretical and leijal agent, but he was the active agent for

carrying on this sale, and being such agent he was bound,

as I understand tlie law, if he intended to purchase him-

self, or to take a share in the purchase, to tell the plaintiff

(the principal) so, and, as I think, to tell him more than

that — to tell him what share in the purchase he intended

to take."

(l) Tlie agent must always keep proper accounts on

behalf of his princii)al.

WJdtc V. Lcuhj Lincoln (1803), 8 Ves. 363; here Lord

Eldon said ; " With reference to those latter characters

(those of general agent, auditor, land-steward, and manager)

JilOHTS OF A PRINCIPAL AGAINST HIS AGENT. 43

this Court must for the safety of mankind lay down as a

rule, to be departed from only upon very special circum-

stances, that a man standing in that relation is bound to

keep regular accounts of his transactions on behalf of his

employer." It was also laid down in this case that if an

agent has not kept proper accounts, he cannot charge his

principal for his services.

(c) The agent must not make any profit in the course

of his employment without his principal's consent ; and

any so made will become the absolute property of his

employer.

Morison v. Thompson (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 480, & 30

L. T. 869 ; in this case a broker was employed by the

plaintiff to buy him a ship called the Atrato as cheaply as

possible. The vendor had promised to give his broker

Scott whatever he obtained over ВЈ8500 for the said ship.

Scott promised to give the plaintiff's broker (the defendant)

a share of the amount paid in excess of ВЈ8500. Eventually

the defendant bought the ship for the plaintiff for ВЈ9250.

The Court held that the plaintiff could recover, in an action

for money had and received, from the defendant, the amount

that the latter had obtained from Scott, viz. ВЈ225.

Harrhigton v. Victoria Graving Doch Company (1878),