3 Q. B. D. 549 ; in this case, the defendants agreed to give

the plaintiff, who was in the employment of the Great

Eastern Railway Company, a commission of 5 per cent, for

superintending repairs which had to be done to two ships

belonging to the Great Eastern Railway, in consideration

of the plaintiff's promise to use his influence to get the

Railway Company to accept the defendants' tender for the

repair of the said ships. The Court held that the plaintiff

could not recover any commission upon such an agreement,

as even if the promise of commission did not as a matter

of fact bias the plaintiff, still the tendency of such an

aofreement Avas to bias the mind of the aofent or other

44 The law of agency.

person employed, and to lead him to act disloyally to his

principal.

The Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Coiw^xmy v. An sell

(1888), 39 Ch. D. 339. C. A. ; in this case the defendant,

who was the managing director, at a yearly salary, of the

plaintiff company, contracted on its behalf with a ship-

building company for the construction of certain fishing

smacks, and unknown to the plaintiff company took a

commission from the ship-building company upon the

contract. The defendant was also a shareholder in an ice

company, and a fish-carrying company, which gave bonuses

to such of their shareholders as, being owners of fishing

smacks, employed the said companies in supplying ice and

carrying for them : the defendant employed these companies

In respect of the plaintiff' company's smacks, and himself

received the bonuses. The Court held that the fact of the

defendant having taken commission from the ship-building

company, justified the plaintifi" company for dismissing him

from their employment, even though they did not find out

till after the dismissal what had taken place. It also

held that the defendant must account to the plaintiffs for

the commission he had received from the ship-building

company, and also for the bonuses he had received from

the ice and fish-carrying companies. In giving judgment,

Bowen, L. J., said ; " 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 person a profit arising out of the business which

he is employed to transact, is doing a wrongful act incon-

sistent 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

wliich he actually performs for the third party, or whether

It ])(I given to him for his supposed infiuence, or whether it

l)e 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

i

RIGHTS OF A PRINCIPAL AGAINST HIS AGENT. 45

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."

Mayor of Salford v. Lever (1891), 1 Q. B. 168. C. A. ;

here it was laid down by the Court of Appeal, that if an

agent, who has been bribed so to do, induces his principal

to enter into a contract with the person who has bribed

him, and such contract is disadvantageous to the principal,

the principal has two distinct and cumulative remedies :

(1) He may recover from the agent the amount of the

bribe he received. (2) He may also recover from the agent,

and the person who has paid the bribe, jointly or severally,

damages for any loss he has sustained by reason of his

having entered into the contract, without allowing any

deduction in respect of what he has recovered from the

agent under the former head.

Shipway v. Broadwood (1899), 1 Q. B. 369. C. A. ; in

this case the defendant purchased a pair of horses from

the plaintiff, after having obtained a certificate of soundness

from a veterinary surgeon whom he employed to examine

them. The defendant found, after delivery, that the horses

were unsound, and thereupon stopped the cheque he had

sent for the price. In the course of an action brought upon

the cheque, it having been proved that the veterinary

surgeon had been bribed by the plaintiff, the Court held

that it was immaterial to inquire what effect the bribe had

upon the mind of the defendant's agent, that it invalidated

the certificate of soundness, and that the plaintiff could

not recover under the contract, seeing that it depended on

the validity of the certificate.

But if a principal employs an agent whom he in fact

knows is not to be remunerated by himself, but by the

third party ; but does not choose to inquire what the

amount of the remuneration is, then the principal will be

held, by construction of law, to have consented to his