188, Hi notis. Pitt V. Yalden, 4 Burr. 2061. Russell V. Hankey, 6 t. R. 12. War-

wick V. Nokes, Peake, 68. Bee Forster v. Pearson, 5 Tyrwh. 267 ; 1 C. M. & R. 849.

Heiteh v. Carrington, 5 C. tk P. 471. Thus a banker is bound to honor his customer's

drafts, if he have assets lodged with him within a reasonable time for tliat purpose,

and the drafts be duly presented to him. Marzetti v. Williams, 1 B. В»fc Ad. 415.

Whitaker v. Bank of England, 1 C. M. & R. 744 ; 5 Tyrwh. 268. But he is not bound

to do so, if they be not presented during banking hours, ibid. ; though possibly there

would be a neglect imputable to him, if it were shown that he had a person stationed

at the bank after banking hours to give answers, and that person had omitted to in-

form the holder of the draft that there were assets to meet it, ibid. So it had been

held that a known stockbroker employed to sell may bind his principal to the ordi-

nary rules of the exchange, Sutton v. Tatham, 10 A. & E. 27, and in certain trades

a factor may by custom sell in his own name. Johnston v. Usborne, 11 Ad. <fe K 549.

154 Mercantile persons.

Rights of Principal against Agent.

notice to his principal. (?;)* And lie must possess a competent de-

gree of skill, in order to enable liim to do so ; if lie engage with-

out such skill he is a deceiver, and will be justly liable for the con-

sequences of his incapacity ; he is, moreover, responsible not only

for himself, but for those whom he may employ under him. {w)f

(v) Callander v. Olerich, 5 Bing. K C. 58.

(mi) Lord North's case, Dy. 171. Mackersy v. Ramsays, 9 CI. & Fin. 818. Tlie

principal in most instances has no remedy directly against the sub-agent^ there being

no privity between them. See Cobb. v. Becke, 6 Q. B. 930. See also, Wilson & Co.

t;. Smith, 3 How. S. C. R. 363.

* The distintion betwen a general and an unlimited authority is pointed out in

the following cases. Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East, 408. Anderson v. Cronley, 21

Wend. 299. Odiorne v. Maxcy, 13 Mass. Rep. 181. Hewes v. Doddridge, 1 Rob. v.

R. 143. St. John v. Redmond, 9 Porter R. 428. Russell on Factors and Brokers, 15.

в– j- The responsibility of an agent to whom commercial paper has been intrusted

for collection, is considered very much at large by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case

of Hamilton, Donaldson & Co. v. Cunningham, 2 Brok. 350. The rule deduced from

the authorities is, that the agent does not bear the same relation to his principal as

the holder of a bill of exchange does to the drawer or indorser; but his responsibil-

Ity is to be determined b}' the law regulating the relation of principal and agent

generallj'. The actual loss sustained by the principal, in consequence of the miscon-

dncs of the agent, is the amount of damage for which the latter is responsible. In

accordance with the same principles, it was held by Judge Stor}^ in the case of

the United States Bank v. Goddard, 5 Mason, 366, that an agent is only bound to

give notice of the dishonor of a note which has been committed to him for collec-

tion to his principal, the holder, and not to the indorsers, although the latter might

receive information much sooner from him than the principal. "The agency," says

J. Story, "does not include any such duty. If the agent contracts with his principal

to give such notice, it is a mere private contract between the parties, with which an