This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1845 Excerpt: ...principal which may come to his hands in the course of his employment, for a debt due from the agent himself.(m) The reason of this rule was well explained by Lord Chief Justice Tindal in a recent case, --where the question was as to the right of a banker to retain the property of a third person deposited with him by ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1845 Excerpt: ...principal which may come to his hands in the course of his employment, for a debt due from the agent himself.(m) The reason of this rule was well explained by Lord Chief Justice Tindal in a recent case, --where the question was as to the right of a banker to retain the property of a third person deposited with him by the agent of that person, for a debt due from the agent himself. The contract of lien " being made between the banker and the customer only, cannot," said his lordship, "bind the rights of other parties. It is competent to the banker and his customer to agree that the banker shall have a lien on all property on which the customer can lawfully give it, which may come to the hands of the banker; and this agreement may be expressed in words, or may be inferred from the course of trade: but it is not competent for them to agree expressly, or in any other manner, that the banker shall have a lien on the property of other persons on which the custo (A) Sec Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W, 270. 282.() Docs not the judgment of Abbott, C. J., in the case ofCannan v. Bryce, 3 B. & Al. 179, (5 E. C. L. R.) seem to countenance the opinion, that as between the assignees of the principal, and the agent, this rule would not hold? It is submitted that had the action in that case been brought by the bankrupts themselves before their bankruptcy, they could not have recovered, inasmuch as they appear to have been in pari delicto with the defendant; and yet the defendant was not allowed to retain for his advances, as against the assignees, who claimed for the benefit of the lawful creditors. (i) Per Chambre, J., Houghton v. Matthews, 3 Bos. &. Pul. 485. 488. () See observations of Ellenborough, C. J. Mann v. Forrester, 4 Camp. 61. (/) See Barr...
Read Less
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
PLEASE NOTE, WE DO NOT SHIP TO DENMARK. New Book. Shipped from UK in 4 to 14 days. Established seller since 2000. Please note we cannot offer an expedited shipping service from the UK.
