Illegal and void." [The word " illegal," as here used by

Brett, L. J., means merely " not in accordance with the

provisions of the Act;" vide the judgment of Baggalay,

L.J., in the case of Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D.

388. C. A.]

Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460; here the

plaintiffs, who were stockbrokers, were employed by the

defendant to buy him certain shares in a joint-stock bank-

Ing company. Plaintiffs purchased the shares, and sent

defendant the usual contract note, which did not specify

the registered number of the shares, as it is required to do

by Leeman's Act (30 & 31 Vict. c. 29), it being the custom

on the Stock Exchange to ignore that Act. Before settlino;

62 The law of agency.

day the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs repudiating the

contract on the ground of it not being in accordance with

the provisions of the Act. The plaintiffs, however, executed

the contract and paid for the shares themselves, in order to

avoid being declared defaulters on the Stock Exchange.

The Court held that as the defendant knew, or might have

known, at the time when he gave the authority, of the

custom to ignore the Act, he could not revoke his authority

after the brokers had incurred the liability, and that the

plaintiffs were entitled to recover the price of the shares

from him.

Perry v. Burnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388. C. A. ; here

the defendant instructed the plaintiffs, who were stock-

brokers at Bristol, to buy him certain shares in a joint-stock

banking company, which they accordingly did. Before

settling day the defendant repudiated the contract, on the

ground that it was void, as the contract note did not specify

the registered number of the shares in accordance with

Leeman's Act. The Court held that the plaintiffs were

not entitled to recover the price of the shares from the

defendant, inasmuch as the custom of the Stock Exchange

to ignore Leeman's Act was an unreasonable one, and was

not known to the defendant at the time when he instructed

the plaintiffs to buy the shares.

Coates V. Pacey (1892), 8 T. L. R. 474. C. A. ; here the

defendant instructed her stockbrokers to buy her certain

bank shares, which they did. When the defendant found

that the contract had not been carried out in accordance

with the provisions of Leeman's Act, she repudiated it on

the ground that it was void. Tlie Court held that the

plaintiffs could not recover the price of the shares (which,

In compliance with the rules of the Stock Exchange, they

liiid been o1)liged to pay for themselves), seeing that the

custom of tlie Stock Excliaiigo to ignore Leeman's Act was

an unreasonable one, and unknown to the defendant.

Synith v. lieynohU (1892), 8 T. L. K. 391. C. A. ; here

RIGHTS OF AN AGENT AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL. 03

the defendant instructed the plaintiff, a stockbroker, to

sell certain sha)-es on the Stock Exchange for him. The

plaintiff did so, and though the transfer of the said shares

was a forged one, became personally liable to the purchasing

broker, in accordance with the rules of the Stock Exchange.

The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to be in-

demnified by the defendant upon the transaction. Esher,

M.R., said ; " Any one instructing a broker to buy or sell

shares on the Stock Exchange is liable to indemnify the

broker for any liability incurred by him in carrying out

his instructions by reason of the rules of the Stock

Exchange, so long as those rules are reasonable. That

principle applies to all markets."

(c) If the loss or damage is incurred through the

default of the agent himself, he loses his right to be