46 The law of agency.

agent receiving from the third party the amount whieli

an agent employed in a similar business usually charges.

The Great ^Yestern Insurance Company v. Canliffe

(1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 525 ; here the plaintiffs, who were a

Marine Insurance Company in New York, emplo^'ed the

defendant firm in London as their agents for settling

claims in England, and for effecting reinsurances. For

settlintr the claims, the defendants were to receive a fixed

percentage ; but nothing was arranged as to remuneration

for the reinsuring. According to the custom as between

underwriters and brokers, the defendants were allowed by

the underwriters five per cent, on each reinsurance, and

also at the end of the year, on the general balance between

the underwriter and the broker, twelve per cent, on the

profits of the year, if there were any. The defendants

habitually received both these percentages, but only men-

tioned the five per cent, in the accounts sent to the

plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffs discovered, in 18GG, tliat

the defendants were receiving the twelve per cent, allow-

ance, they made no objection till 18G8 ; but in 1868 they

filed a bill in Chancery against the defendants for an

account in which the twelve per cent, should be accounted

for ; and also claiming repayment of certain sums of

Interest. The Court held that the defendants were rightly

entitled to the twelve per cent, allowance, and also to

the interest that they had charged. Mellish, L.J., said ;

" If a person employs another, who he knows carries on a

larffe business, to do certain work for him as his agent with

other persons, and does not choose to ask him what his

charge will be, and, in fact, knows that he is to bo remu-

nerated, not by him, but by the other persons — which is

Very common in mercantile business — and does not choose

to take the trouble of inquiring what the amount is, he

Iiiiist allow th(! oniinary amount which agents are in the

lialiit of charging."

J'.<irni>j\.iS(aidou (LSTG;, 8 Ch. D. 502. C. A.; here the

RIGHTS OF A PRINCIPAL AGAINST HIS AGENT. 47

Court of Appeal affirmed the rule laid down in The Great

Western Insurance Company v. Ciinlife, uhi supra.

(d) The agent must never use information or materials

obtained in the course of his employment, to the detriment

of his principal — vide Lamb v. Evans (1893), 1 Ch. 218, &

2 R. 189, and Rohb v. Green (1895), 2 Q. B. 315. C. A., (^'11

T. L. E,. 517. In the latter case, the plaintiff was the owner

of a game farm at Liphook in Hants, and the defendant,

who had formerly been manager to the plaintiff, was at

the time in question carrying on a similar business near

Henley. The defendant, while in the plaintiff's service, had

secretly copied from the latter's order-book a list of his

customers, which he afterwards used for the purposes of his

own business by sending circulars to them. The plaintiff

claimed damages and an injunction, which were both

granted him ; the Court holding that in every contract of

service there is an implied obligation on the part of the

servant to serve his master honestly and faithfully, and

not to abuse his confidence in matters appertaining to

such service.