KEPOSITORIES AND AUCTIONS. 53 



action for money had and received against the Auctioneer 

 for the deposit, though the latter had paid it over to the 

 vendor without any notice from' the purchaser not to do so, 

 and before the defect of title was ascertained {u) ; for in 

 strict law the Auctioneer, being a stakeholder, is not en- 

 titled to notice of the contract being rescinded (,r) . 



An Auctioneer, being a mere stakeholder, is not liable As to intc- 

 f or interest on the deposit to the vendor {y) . ^"'^^t- 



An Auctioneer has a lien upon the goods sold by him, Auctioneer's 

 and a right of lien upon the price when paid, for his ^*^^- 

 commission and charges (2). With this object he may 

 bring an action in his own name for the price of the 

 goods sold by him. Accordingly, where the defendant 

 pleaded to a declaration for the price of a Horse sold and 

 delivered by the plaintiff, who was an Auctioneer, that 

 the plaintiff sold the Horse as Auctioneer, agent and 

 trustee for K., and that defendant had paid K. before 

 action brought, this plea was held on demurrer to be a bad 

 plea («) . 



Where a Horse is sold at a Repository on certain con- When the 

 ditions, one of which for instance may be, a power to P^'^°® ^^f"^ ^^ 

 return the Horse within a certain time, if he does not 

 answer his warranty ; it has been held that the price which 

 the Auctioneer has received does not vest in the vendor 

 until the conditions have been complied with {p) . 



Where an Agent on a Sale receives as the price of an Price obtained 

 article money olDtained by the fraud of his principal, it is ^y principal's 

 not Money received to the tise of the principal, but to the ^^^ ' 

 use of the purchaser of the chattel. Thus a Horsedealer 

 employed an Auctioneer to sell a Horse for him, and to 

 make certain representations which amounted to gross 

 fraud. The Horse was sold and paid for, but before the 

 money was paid over, the fraud was discovered and the 

 money returned to the purchaser. The Horsedealer 

 brought an action against the Auctioneer to recover the 

 money so received by him. But it was held by the Court 

 of Queen's Bench that he could not recover, as the 

 principle of Murray v. Mann (c) applied with the greatest 

 force to this case. And it was said that it would be a 



(«) Gray v. Guttericlr/e, 3 C. & P. Robinson v. Rictter, 24 L. J., Q. B. 



40. 250. 



(.(•) Duncan v. Cafe, 2 M. & W. {a) Robinson v. Rutter, 24 L. J., 



244. Q. B. 250. 



{y) Harington v. Hogart, 1 B. & (i) Ilardingham v. Allen, 5 C. B. 



Ad. 577. 796. 



(i) Coppin V. Craig, 7 Taunt. 243 ; (c) Murray v. Mann, 2 Exch. 538. 



