Ij) Morris V. Cleasby, 4 m. & s. 566. Hornby V. Lacy, 6 m. & s. 166. Ciimraing

В». Forrester, 1 M tii: S. 494. Baker v. Langhorn, 6 Taunt. 519.

* This is tlie conclusion of Judge Stor^*, Chancellor Kent, and Mr. Duer, who have

soch examined the questions elaborately'. Thompson v. Perkins, 3 Mason C. C. R.

232. 2 Kent's Comm. 624, 625, and notes. Story on Agency, s. 215. Leveriek V.

164 Mercantile persons.

Rights of Principal against Agent.

note or acceptance to his principal for the amount of the proceeds,

he will be liable on that, whether employed under a del creden-t

commission or not, and whether the vendee be or be not solvent.

For, by giving such an instrument, he lulls all the suspicions of

his employer, and causes him to dismiss all care about the solvency

of the purchaser, (j)

With respect to imrchases. As no agent can lawfully exceed his

orders, it follows, that if he do so, his principal, though he may

perhaps insist upon keeping them, if he think it for his advantage,

{k) has a right to refuse the goods improperly purchased ; and it

has been said, that, in such case, if he have advanced money on

them, he may, instead of returning, take upon himself to dispose of

them, as factor for the agent who transgressed his orders. (Z) But

then he must repudiate the transaction, and give notice of his dis-

agreement to the agent within a reasonable time, else he will be

taken to have adopted it, and the loss, if any, will fall upon him-

self; (m) and it has been intimated, (n) that though an agent exceed

the price named in his instructions, yet if, by means of doing so, he

effect a saving on the same goods equal in amount to the excess of

price, equity at least would consider him as justified.

An agent employed to purchase goods which are to be shipped

abroad, ought to transmit the bill of lading to his employer as soon

as possible, (o)

(y) Lefevre v. Lloyd, 5 Taunt. "749. Simpson v. Swan, 3 Camp. 29L Goupy v.

Harden, 7 Taunt. 159.

{k) Taylor v. Plummer, 3 M. & S. 562.

{I) Paley on P. & A. cap. 1, sect. 1. Cornwall v. Wilson, 1 Ves. sen. 509. See

Kemp V. Prior, Y Yes. jun. 240.

{m) Cornwall v. Wilson, 1 Ves. sen. 509. Prince v. Clarke, 1 B. <fe C. 186.

In) In Cornwall V. Wilson.

(o) Barber v. Taylor, 5 M. &, W. 5 27.

Meigs, 1 Cow. R. 645. Duer on Insurance, vol. ii. p. 331, 371. In the later case of

Wolff V. Koppel, 2 Denio R. 368, there was a conflict of judicial opinion on this

point. See also Swan v. Nesmith, 7 Pick. 220, and Couturier v. Hastie, recently de-

cided in the Court of Exchequer, 16 E. L. & E. R 562, where an agreement by a fac-

tor to sell upon a del credere commission was declared not to be a promise to answer

for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person, within the 4th section of

the Statute of Frauds, and therefore valid, although not in writing.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 16c

Rights of Principal against Agent.