Islands, upon tlic terms that tlie plaintifi" sliould be paid a

2i^ per coiit. commission upon the amount obtained by such

i

niQETS OF AN AGENT AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL. 53

sale. The plaintiff advertised the property, and put it up

to auction, but without succeeding in finding a purchaser.

The property, however, was soon afterwards sold privately

by defendant himself to a person who had attended the

auction in consequence of seeing plaintiff's advertisement,

and who had obtained from the plaintiff" the name of the

owner. During his negotiations with the purchaser, and

before completing the sale to him, the defendant revoked the

plaintiff's authority to sell the property. The Court held

that the plaintiff was entitled to the commission which the

defendant had agreed to pay him on the sale of the property,

seeing that the plaintiff had been the " causa causans " of the

sale, although the actual sale had not been effected by him.

Antrohus v. Wick-ens (1865), 4 F. & F. 291 ; here Cock-

burn, C. J., said ; " Commission is not due merely because

In some way or other the loan followed casually, indirectly,

and as a remote consequence. It must appear that the

advance was obtained by or through their agency."

Lofts V. BourJ>:e (1884), 1 T. L. K 58; here Stephen, J.,

giving judgment for the defendant, said ; " I am of opinion

that the plaintiffs (the agents) have failed to prove that

they have done anything which could be considered to

have materially caused the purchaser to buy the defendant's

house."

Liimley v. Nicholson (1886), 34 W. E. 716 ; here the

defendant employed the plaintiff" to sell an estate for him

upon the terms that he should be paid a certain commission

upon the amount obtained by such sale. The estate was

divided into lots, some of which were purchased by one

Armitage, and the plaintiff got his commission on those

lots. Defendant then revoked plaintiff's authority, and

subsequently Armitage bought the remaining lots from

defendant by private contract. The Court held that the

jury were entitled to find for the defendant, on the ground

that the ultimate sale was not due to the plaintiff's intro-

duction.

54 The law of agency.

Toulmin v. Millar (1887), 58 L. T. N.S. 9G, & 3 T. L. R.

836 ; Here the question was, whether the plaintiff", an

estate agent, who had been employed by an owner of land

to let his estate for him, and who had done so, was entitled

to commission upon the sale of the said estate, which was

subsequently bought by the tenant found by the plaintiff,

but without any further communications with him (plain-

tiff). The House of Lords, reversing the judgment of the

Court of Appeal, held that the plaintiff was not entitled

to any commission upon the sale. And Lord Watson, in

giving judgment, said : " It is impossible to affirm in

general terms that A is entitled to a commission if he

can prove that he introduced to B the person who after-

wards purchased B's estate, and that his introduction be-

came the cause of the sale. In order to found a legal claim

for commission, there must not only be a causal, there must

also be a contractual relation between the introduction and

the ultimate transaction of sale. If A (the agent) had no

employment to sell, express or implied, he could have

no claim to be remunerated."

Bayley & others v. Ghadtvick (1878), 36 L. T. N.S.