Добавил:
neus500
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:!!Экзамен зачет 2023 год / smith.doc
X
- •Very peculiar cases) (a) appoint an agent to do for him, I say in
- •148 Mercantile persons.
- •In accordance with the custom of his trade of architecture ; " for,"
- •385. Maryatt V. Broderick, 2 m. & "w. 369. Miles V. Bough, 3 q. B. 845.
- •Ing within the Statute of Frauds. (/)
- •150 Mercantile persons.
- •6 Anne, c. 16, and 57 Geo. 8, c. 60, brokers in London must be
- •It is decided that a person who does work iu London as a
- •In them, and a general lien upon them. "When, therefore, he sells in his own right,
- •It is within the scope of his authority ; and it may be right, therefore, that the prin-
- •Is called an exchange broker, a stock broker, a merchandise broker, a ship broker, or
- •152 Mercaxtile persons.
- •645. Williams V. Littlefield, 12 Wend. 362. Jackson V. O'Hara, 5 Leigh, 456. Beck-
- •It is important to ascertain the extent of his authority. " The cashier of a bank, '
- •Its use and in its behalf No special authority for this purpose is necessary to be
- •1. The mutual rights of the agent and his principal.
- •2. Those of the principal and third parties.
- •3. Those of the agent and third parties.
- •188, Hi notis. Pitt V. Yalden, 4 Burr. 2061. Russell V. Hankey, 6 t. R. 12. War-
- •154 Mercantile persons.
- •Ity is to be determined b}' the law regulating the relation of principal and agent
- •Indorser has nothing to do. It neither enlarges nor limits his rights. It may be in-
- •Insurer of the solvency of the purchaser. Harve}' V. Turner, 4 Rawle, 223. For-
- •20 Wend. 321.
- •It, and constitute such bank, in acting for others, an agent for reward; and of course
- •330. Bank of Utica V. Smeade, 3 Cow. 662. Mechanics' Bank at Baltimore V. Mer-
- •It in the hands of a notary in time for demand and payment, is liable for the neglect
- •1T3. Hyde & Goodrich V. Planters' Bank of Mississippi, 17 Louisiana Rep. 560.
- •156 Mercantile persons.
- •226. Weed V. Carpenter, 4 Wend. 219. Cairnes V. Bleeker, 12 Johns. R. 300. Hooe
- •242. Burn V. Denman, 2 Exch. 167. A principal will not, however, be liable for a
- •Vanderbilt V. Richmond t. Co., 2 Comst. 479. A corporation as well as an indivi-
- •Is liable to trover.
- •It is a very essential part of the good faith required from him,
- •290. 2 C. & m. 530. Kieran V. Saunders, 6 Ad. & e. 516. Betteley V. Reid, 4 q. B.
- •Implied agreement to the contrary, (0 be entitled to every m-
- •If the banker fail ; for otherwise he might treat it as his own if
- •413 ; Fletcher V. Walker, 3 Madd. 73. Darke V. Martyn, 1 Bev. 526.
- •Ing instructions only, when they involve a breach of good morals, or a violation of
- •Insurance, 214. This subject was very fully discussed in the Supreme Court of ilas-
- •Iqq aiErcantile persons.
- •It was once hinted, that an action of account was the only
- •650. So, although the usage of trade may warrant a factor in selling on credit, and
- •In such case discounted the note for his own use, and the maker became insolvent
- •Ing. Wilkin V. Wilkin, 1 Salk. 9. Clark V. Moody, 17 Mass. 145. Cooley V. Belts,
- •24 Wend. 203. American Leading Cases, Vol. L p. 697, second edition. The rule
- •In refusing to account, {V) or seek relief in equity, {IV) where he
- •Is not liable in case of robbery, fire, or other accidental damage,
- •432, In notis.
- •4 Gratt. Va. Rep. 163.
- •1(52 Mercantile persons.
- •In case of his being unable to effect an insurance, (c)
- •If any price be limited by his instructions, he must sell for
- •Ing payment, and informing him of his intention to sell ; for al-
- •It only in the usual way of business, (e) But if he be a factor in
- •Ij) Morris V. Cleasby, 4 m. & s. 566. Hornby V. Lacy, 6 m. & s. 166. Ciimraing
- •232. 2 Kent's Comm. 624, 625, and notes. Story on Agency, s. 215. Leveriek V.
- •164 Mercantile persons.
- •In) In Cornwall V. Wilson.
- •In conclusion of this head we must observe, that there is a dif- j
- •In them, are punished criminally by stats. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, cap. 29,
- •113, Baron Rolfe observed that he could see no difference between negligence and
- •16G mercantile persoxs.
- •Ing a charterer for the ship, unless the owner think proper to con-
- •In the regular course of trade, or even on the spur of some pressing
- •In his employment as to incur expenses which would not have
- •1 T. R. 113. Stokes V. Lewis, 1 t. R. 20.
- •Imburse such advances or meet such liabilities, unless there is some existing agree-
- •Incurred liabilities thereon, if the consignor stands ready and offers to reimburse and
- •Indemnity must have been conscious that in committing the act,
- •Ings V. Bell, 1 c. B. 951.
- •Vances previously made, to the full value of the property. Some of the American
- •22 Pick. 40. Marfield V. Goodhue, 3 Comst. 62. Frothingham V. Everton, 12 n. H,
- •239. See also Williams & Morley V. Littlefield, 12 Wend. 362. Jordan et ah. V.
- •170 Mercantile persons.
- •Its extent as well as of its existence ; and, in solving all questions
- •Illustrated by Lord c. J, Holt, (m) who says, " If a man send
- •Intervenire mandare creditur. Dig. Lib. 50, tit. 17.
- •1 Camp. 85.
- •234. Anderson V. Sanderson, 2 Stark. 204. Stubbing V. Heintz, Peake, 47. Wey-
- •172 Jiercantile persons.
- •It follows from the above observations, that an agent may be
- •V. Barton, 6 Mee. & Welsh. (12,) where it was held, that even in an English port the
- •Is not to be considered as the agent of the owner in that behalf, so as to make the
- •V. Smith, 11 Mod. 87. See Daniells V. Adams, AmbL 498. Petties V. Soame, 13 Vin.
- •V. Adams, Ambl. 498. Clinan V. Cooke, 1 Sch. & Lef. 22. Seton V. S'.Ade, 7 Ves. 276.
- •174 Mercantile persons.
- •667, -Where a bill drawn on Bruce, Shand & Co., having been transmitted to Alexan-
- •5 B. Cfe a. 204. Esdaile V. La Nauze, 1 y. & Coll. Fearn V. Filica, 7 m, & Gr.
- •513. Agent to pay and receive cannot indorse bills. Davidson V. Stanley, 2 m. &
- •In its execution, unless words are used which manifestly show an intention to create
- •Ity of the agents, has been always held to be sufficient. A departure from the rule
- •Is also admitted in commercial transactions, in favor of trade : and in the case of
- •17G mercantile persoxs.
- •391 ; 4 Tyrwh. 164.
- •23 Wend. 260. Nelson V. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336. Skinner V. Gun, 9 Porter, 305.
- •1846. An authority to sell does not, however, authorize a sale on credit, unless it is
- •Ing the general business of a mine to borrow money in case of ne-
- •Vides for ordinary events, and not for cases which are of rare occur-
- •It may be necessary, in order to have the vessel repaired or to raise
- •158. Townsend V. Corning, 23 Wend. 435. Townshend V. Hubbard, 4 Hill n. Y.
- •I78 mercantile persons.
- •Intrusted with the particular document or not, was one of fact for the jury; and in
- •IgO mercantile persons.
- •Vanced or given upon the faith of such document, {d) if the buyer,
- •295 Where it was decided, that when the advance was made on documents, for wliich
- •Vice Chancellor, held that the pledge was a valid one within the act of Victoria;
- •Ing he shall have notice that the party with whom he contracts is a
- •In Evans V. Trueman, 1 Moo. & Rob. 10, on the question of what notice would bind
- •It has become a usual course of business to pledge : not that it was legal ; on the con-
- •182 Mercantile persons.
- •It is further provided {t) that this act shall not prevent the true
- •Intrusted as aforesaid, as well for any original loan, advance, or
- •Is made is only an agent,
- •II. " That where any such contract or agreement for pledge,
- •Value at the time of the goods and merchandise which, or the docu-
- •III. " That that Act, and every matter and thing therein con-
- •Immediately from the owner of such goods, or obtained by reason
- •V. " That nothing therein contained shall lessen, vary, alter, or
- •VI. " That if any agent intrusted as aforesaid shall, contrary to
- •Victed thereof, shall be sentenced to transportation for any term not
- •186 Mercantile persons.
- •Vance as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
- •Viction of any such agent so convicted as aforesaid shall not be re-
- •Victed by any evidence whatsoever in respect of any act done by
- •VII. " That nothing therein contained shall prevent such owner
- •Vided always, that in case of the bankruptcy of any such agent the
- •2 Smith's l. C. 205.
- •188 Mercantile persons.
- •Is an English, and the jprincipal a foreign merchant, ihe seller will
- •Vitiates an insurance, although that fact may have been known
- •Versa, notice to the principal is, where that becomes material, gener-
- •It is not admissible as his account of what passes." In consequence
- •Is receivable against him by way of admission. Daniel V. Pitt, Peake, 238. William
- •V. Innes, 1 Camp. 364. Sybray V. White, 1 Mee. & Wels. 435.
- •190 Mercantile persons.
- •Iff) Sanderson V. Bell, 2 Cr. & Mee. 304 ; 4 Tyrwh. 244.
- •7 Beav. 506.
- •In account with the debtors, with whom he also keeps running ac-
- •442. See Partridge V. Bank of England. 15 l j. Q. B. 395.
- •192 Mercantile persons.
- •Ing from such his employment.
- •Ing him, or drive his master's carriage so unskilfully that it injures
- •Injury arising from the carelessness of another who is engaged in the same general
- •6 Curt. Y5. Hutchinson V. York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway, 5 w. H. & g. 343,
- •Ib. 354. The doctrine, after elaborate discussion, has been denied in Ohio, Stevens
- •272. See Lyons V. Martin, 8 a. & e. 512.
- •3 Camp. 403. Harris V. Baker, 4 m. & s. 27. "Weyland V. Elkins, supra. See the
- •It was a case in which the defendant hired job-horses and a coachman from a livery
- •V. Miami Railroad Co., 20 Ohio. Priestly V. Fowler, 3 Mees. & Welb. 1, and Murray
- •V. The Souih Carolina Railroad Co., 1 McMullan, 385, were referred to in argument
- •195, But it was held not applicable where one servant was a slave,
- •194 Mercantile persons
- •113, A warehouseman employed a master-porter to remove a barrel from his ware-
- •Intervention of an agent authorized by him to appoint servants for him, can make no
- •In the case of some public officers, such as the postmaster-general, coiTimissioners of
- •15 East, 884. Lane V. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646; Com. 100. "Whitfield V. Lord Le
- •92, Pi. 2 ik s; see Morris V. Parkinson, 4 Tyr. 700, 1 c. M. & r. 163, except when
- •196 Mercantile persons.
- •V. Bower, Cowp. 323. See, however, 9 h. 6, 53 b, cited in Bro. Abr., " Action sur le
- •548. Foster V. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479. Vanderbilt V. Richmond Turnpike Co., 1
- •It is sought to charge his principal (I/)
- •It will be revoked also by the death of the principal, (d) and that
- •VII. Fol. 11, b. But this case does not seem applicable to the case of a mercantile
- •V. Ilberry, 10 m. & w. 1.
- •Interest in the thing which is the subject of agency. The doctrine was laid down with
- •It is declared by statute in Maryland and Georgia, that a power of attorney shall
- •Ingraft the same just and rational doctrine upoD the common law. Cassiday V. McKen-
- •In delivering the opinion of the Court, said: "But, finally, it is contended, that a
- •It should be a mispayment, when revoked by death, and a good payment when ex-
- •Instantly revoked by the death of the grantor; and an act afterwards bona fide done
- •Vested in him, free from all equities of the principal, than strictly a power to trans-
- •It on the rational ground, that, although the conveyance would be bad at law, yet
- •It would be good in equity, when made bona fide without any notice whatever of the
- •In, the general question, that a payment after the death of the principal is not
- •200 Mercantile persons.
- •Implied authority arising from previous employment, that can, as
- •435 ; And see Ex parte Bradberry, 4 Deacon, 202.
- •V. Anderson, 3 b- & c. 842.
- •202 Mercantile persons.
- •Iq) Seignior V. Walmer, Godb. 3g0.
- •7Z. Does not ratify the act, it only goes in diminution of damages."
- •If an agent acting for an undisclosed principal have made a
- •In his own name, the party dealing with him will enjoy the same
- •Ipsa lex. {d) Thus, though, if o, factor sell goods in his own name,
- •Is within the scope of his authority, and it is right, therefore, that
- •3 B. Tfe Ad. 334. See Warner V. M'Kay, 1 m. & Wels. 595, which goes further per
- •Ing contracted through an agent, than he would have been if he
- •V. Winter, 5 b. & Ad. 101, where all the authorities are collected. "Wilkinson V.
- •200 Mercaistile persons.
- •It was contended, that the contract was invalid, on the ground of
- •Versed on another point in Cam. Scacc. (?) The same principle was
- •V. Wilson. Lord Denman, c. J., observed there, "One of two per-
- •It, but, on the contrary, made honestly and in the full belief that it
- •Is true, affords no ground of action." This, it is to be observed,
- •Is facilitated by that rule of evidence which renders the agent a
- •I;. Porteus, 2 II. Bi. 591. Buckmaster V. Ilarrop, 4 Ves. 474. Martin V. Horrell Str.
- •208 Mercantile persons.
- •If he have previously given him notice not to pay to his principal,
- •It has been thought that payment to the principal would not be a
- •It is an invariable rule of law, that no person can sue upon a deed,
- •Ing in ignorance of the real principal. But if it were of a descrip
- •210 Mercantile persons.
- •705. See the judgment in Rew V. Pettet, 1 Ad. & e. 196,
- •V. Beaver, 1 East, 134.
- •22 Wend. 244, Chancellor Walworth and Senator Verplanck delivering elaborate but
- •Versal public policy extrinsic to the local usage of trade, and applicable alike at
- •212 Mercantile persons.
- •In reality no authority. In such a case the person so contracting
- •Volve a private agent in a personal liability. The reason of the distinction is, that
- •In Appleton V. Binks, (q) a man covenanted for himself, his heirs,
- •It was held that he, and not j. S., was answerable for its non-per-
- •If the agent exceed his authority, so that his principal is not
- •440, Whore it was held that a person who signed the contract in his own name is li-
- •661, 3 P. Wms. 279, 1 Eq. Ab. 308, 2 Vern. 127.
- •214 Mercantile pers02ts. '
- •It was thouoht to contain ; it turned out afterwards, that it con-
- •In order to return it to the person who paid it to him. Besides
- •Vvay V. Hurd, 4 t. R. 553, Vernon, 136, 208.
- •It on behalf of his principal for the purpose of trying the existence
- •Voluntarily paid : (2) and these decisions are but just, since, as the
- •216 Mercantile persoxs.
- •Intrusted to him for that purpose, he will not be discharged, (/)
- •If he commit torts while acting in his master's service. In such
In its execution, unless words are used which manifestly show an intention to create
a several authority. This rule is, however,' only applicable to agencies of a private
nature ; for in the case of public agencies, the execution of an authority by a major-
Ity of the agents, has been always held to be sufficient. A departure from the rule
Is also admitted in commercial transactions, in favor of trade : and in the case of
several agents, each is supposed to possess the whole power. Thus, on a consign-
ment of goods for sale to two factors (whether they are partners or not), either of
them may dispose of the goods, for the purposes of the consignment, without the
concurrence of the other. See Story on Agency, 56, 47, 48. Green v. Miller, 6
Johns. R. 39. Peter v. Beverly, 10 Peters, 532. Downing v. Rugar, 21 Wend. 278.
Where there are several joint agents, notice to any one is notice to the principal.
Bank of the United States v. Davis, 2 Hill, 463. So notice to one partner is notice
ii> the firm. The Fulton Bank v. New York and Sharon Canal Co., 4 Paige, 137.
17G mercantile persoxs.
Rights of third Persons against Principal.
tlie loss, and do all that is requisite towards sucli adjustment: (w)
an agent to receive rents and let has power to determine the ten-
ancy : (n) an agent employed to issue process may receive the debt
and costs, (o) and a warranty given by an agent intrusted to sell _prrma
facie binds the principal, (p)* A master who sends his servant to
buy goods, and gives him no money to pay, doubtless authorizes
him to pledge his credit, {(pj But though the agent has an implied
authority to use those means, of which the principal could not but
have foreseen the necessity, and therefore could not but have in-
tended to authorize ; yet, if an unusual contingency arise, it does
not follow that the agent will have power, however useful it might
be, to do that which would enable him to meet the contingency in
the best manner : thus, it was decided in Hawtayne v. Bourne^ 7 M.
& W. 597, that there is no implied authority in an agent conduct
(m) Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 43, n.
(n) Doe d Manvers v. Mizen, 2 M. & Rob. 5Y.
(o) Weary v. Alderson, 2 M. & Rob. 127.
(p) See the cases cited supra, note/. And see Woodin v. Burford, 2 C. <fe Mee.
391 ; 4 Tyrwh. 164.
{q) Per Tindal, L. C. J., delivering judgment of Ex. Ch. in Tobin v. Crawford, 9
M. & W. 718.
* An agent to sell, whether general or special, may be presumed, in the absence
of all proof to the contrary, to be clothed with authority to warrant the quality or
condition of the thing sold ; inasmuch as a warranty or representation is one of the
usual modes of eSFecting a sale. Fenn v. Harrison, 4 T. R. 177. Sandford v. Handy,
23 Wend. 260. Nelson V. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336. Skinner V. Gun, 9 Porter, 305.
Bradford v. Bush, 10 Alab. 386. Hunter v. Iremeson, Iredell's N. C. Rep. for June,
Соседние файлы в папке !!Экзамен зачет 2023 год