432, In notis.

(v) Wilkins v. Wilkins, Carth. 89 ; Salk. 9.

(mi) Mackenzie v. Johnson, 4 Madd. 373. See Scott v. Surman, Willes, 404.

(x) Coggs V. Barnard, 2 Ld. Raym. 917 ; Vere v. Smith, 1 Vent. 121.

(y) Co. Litt. 89, a; Anon. 2 Mod. 100. Vere v. Smith, 1 Vent. 121. The liability

of carriers and innkeepers is more extensive. As to the former, see Book 3, ch. Con-

tracts with Carriers. As to innkeepers, they are bound to keep their guests' property-

safe from thieves, Calye's case, 8 Rep. 33, a. Richmond v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 9. Kent

V. Shuckland, 2 B. & Ad. 803. Jones v. Tyler, 1 Ad. & E. 622. Farnworth v. Pack-

from having his past transactions inquired into, unless some prima facie ease of

fraud is made out against him. Pulling on Mercantile Accounts, p. 36. Co. Litt.

172. a. Evans v. Birch, 3 Camp. 10. Anon. 1 Vern. 136, 208.

By neglecting to keep proper accounts, an agent may not only forfeit his whole

title to compensation, but become liable for any loss to which this default may sub-

ject his principal. Lord Chedworth v. Edwards, 8 Ves. 48. Lupton v. White, 15

Ves. 439. Hart v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. C. R. 108.

In compensation for the burthen thus imposed on the agent of keeping and ren-

dering an account, the law attributes to it a, prima facie credit. It is for the benefit

of the principal that this duty should be performed, and when performed, it would

be unreasonable that he should have the power of rendering it wholly nugatory, and

throwing upon the agent the task of furnishing evidence in relation to the transac-

tion, which may involve minute details, difiicult of proof. Mertens v. Nottebohms,

4 Gratt. Va. Rep. 163.

11

1(52 Mercantile persons.

Rights of Principal against Agent.

he had committed some improper act, had it not been fbr which the

property might have escaped ; for then he will be answerable, (2)

and will not be allowed to say, that perhaps it might not have es-

caped, even had he acted rightly, for it is a rule of law that 7io man

shall qualify his own zvrong. (a) Where goods are consigned to a fac-

tor, it is his duty to insure them, or at least make every usual exer-

tion to insure them, at the request of his principal, if in the course

of their previous dealings he have been used to do so, or, even

thouo-h he may not have been used, if he have effects in hand

enough to cover the expenses of insurance, or if the bill of lading

contain a requisition to insure, for by accepting the goods under it

he ao-rees to such requisition. In any of these cases, if he neglects

to make the fit insurance, he will be responsible for damage which

would have been covered thereby, {b) And where it is the duty of

an agent to insure, it is his duty also to give notice to his principal

In case of his being unable to effect an insurance, (c)

If any price be limited by his instructions, he must sell for

that, and he will not be justified in deviating from them by the

circumstance, that he has, subsequently to receiving them, made

advances to his principal, and given him reasonable notice requir-