1 H, & c. 526 ; here an omnibus driver, in racing a rival

bus, pulled across the road, and so overturned the other

bus. The driver had been expressly forbidden to race other

busses. The company was held liable for the damage done,

on the ground that the driver at the time of the accident

was acting in the course of his employment, and for his

master's benefit.

Bariuidc v. English Joint Stock BanJc (1867), L. R. 2

Ex. 259 ; in delivering judgment in this case, Willes, J.,

said ; " The general rule is that the master is answerable

for every such wrong of the servant or agent as is

120 Tee law of agency.

committed, in the course of the service and for the master's

benefit, though no express command or privity of the master

be proved. That principle is acted upon every day in

running-down cases. It has been applied also to direct

trespass to goods, as in the case of holding the owners oВЈ

ships liable for the act of masters abroad selling the cargo.

... In all these cases it may be said, as it was said here,

that the master has not authorized the act. It is true he

has not authorized the particular act, but he has put the

agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he must be

answerable for the manner in which the agent has conducted

himself in doing the business which it was the act of his

master to place him in."

Ward V. General Omnibus Company (1873), 42 L. J.

C. P. 265 ; here an omnibus driver, intending to strike

with his whip the driver of another bus, struck by mistake

a passenger and injured him. The Court held that, whether

the defendant company were liable or not for the act of

their driver, depended upon whether he had struck the

blow in private spite, or in the supposed furtherance of the

employer's interest.

Mackay v. Commercial Bank of Neiu Brunsiuick (1874),

L. R. 5. P. C. 394 ; here the Privy Council, adopting the

words of Willes, J.,in Barvnch v. English Joint Stock Bank,

ubi supra, decided that the bank was liable for the fraud

of their manager who, by a fraudulent representation,

induced a customer to accept a bill in which the bank was

concerned. For though the directors of the bank had no

knowledge of the fraud, the manager had acted within the

scope of his employment and the bank had received a benefit

from the fraud.

Weir V. Barnett (1877), 3 Ex. D. 32; here the Court

held that it had been settled law ever since the case of

I/ern v. Nich.olU (170U), 1 Salk. 289 (in which case Lord

Ifolt, C. J., held that a merchant was civilly, though not

criminally, liable i'oi- the deceit of his factcjr) that a })iincipal

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 121

is liable for the fraud of his agent committed in the conduct

of his principal's business, and for his benefit.

Houldsortli V. City of Glasgow Bank (1880), 5 App. Cas.

317 ; here Lord Selborne approved of the princi})le of the

liability of a principal for his agent's wrongs as laid

down by Willes, J., in Barwich v. English Joint Stock Bank,

uhi supra. He also said ; " It is of course assumed in all

such cases that the third party who seeks the remedy has

been dealing in good faith with the agent in reliance upon

the credentials with which he has been entrusted by the

principal, and had no notice either of any limitation

(material to the question) of the agent's authority, or of

any fraud or other wrongdoing on the agent's part at the

time when the cause of action arose."

Thome v. Heard (1894), 1 Ch. 599. C. A. ; in this case,

which followed British Mutual Banking Company v.

Charnwood Forest Baihvay Comimny (1887), 18 Q. B, D. 714.

C. A., it was held, that in order to make a principal liable for

his agent's fraud, it must not only be committed within the

scope of his employment, but must also be for the employer's

benefit ; and that the principal could not be liable for the

fraudulent act of his agent even though the agent purported

to act within the ordinary scope of his employment, if when

the agent committed the fraud he did so not in the interests

of his principal, but in his own interests.

It must be observed that, by virtue of 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, a

principal cannot be held liable for any representation, even

though fraudulent, made by his agent as to the pecuniary

character of another person. Section 6 of the above Act pro-

vides ; " No action shall be brought whereby to charge any

person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance

made or given, concerning or relating to the character, con-

duct, credit, ability, trade, or dealing of any other person, to

the intent and purpose that such other person may obtain

credit, money, or goods upon it, unless such representation

122 TEE LAW OF AGENCY.

or assurance be made in writing signed by the party to be

charged therewith." For the effect of this section, vide Sivift

V. Jeiushury (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 ; here it was decided

that the section meant that no man should be liable for a

fraudulent representation as to another's means, unless he

put it into writing and signed it himself

3. If an agent, while acting within the scope of his

authority, or within the ordinary scope of his employment,

misappropriates any money or valuable thing which he

has received from a third party, the principal will be liable

to the third party for the loss — vide Swire y. Francis (1877),

3 App. Cas. 106, and Chapleo v. Brunswick Permanent

Building Society (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 696. C. A.

4. Where a principal intentionally employs an agent

who is ignorant of the truth, in order that such agent may

innocently make a false statement, believing it to be true,

and may so deceive the party with whom he is dealing,

the representation when made by the agent becomes a

misrepresentation of the principal, and renders the principal

liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Ludgater v. Lowe (1881), 44 L. T. 694, & 45 J. P. 600.

C A. ; here the defendant's son represented that certain

sheep which he sold for the defendant were all right. TJie

defendant had fraudulently concealed from his son that the

sheep had the rot, and fraudulently gave the son authority

to sell them for the best price, intending that the son should

represent that they were sound. The defendant was held

liable for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.

liability of Agent to Third Party for his own Torts. — An

agent, while, acting in a representative capacity, is himself

liable, as well as his principal, for any loss or damage caused

to third })arties by liis wrongful or tortious acts, whether

lie has acted with the autliority of his principal or not.

Stephens v. Elwall (1815), 4 M. & S. 259 ; here it was-

BIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 123

held that a servant could be made liable in trover, though

the act of conversion was done by him for the benefit of

his master. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said ; " The only

question is whether this is a conversion in the clerk, which

undoubtedly ;^was in the master. The clerk acted under

an unavoidable io-norance and for his master's benefit, when

he sent the goods to his master ; but nevertheless his acts

may amount to a conversion : for a person is guilty of a

conversion who intermeddles with my property and dis-

poses of it, and it is no answer that he acted under

authority from another, who had himself no authority to

dispose of it."

Stevens v. Midland Counties Railway Company (1854),