SALE AND WAllRANTY BY AN AGENT. 125 



Principal liable, the Agent cannot bo sued upon the 

 contract (e). 



But he may be sued so as to make him liable in But is liable 

 Damages, for the loss sustained by the person with whom ^'^ damages. 

 he has entered into the contract (c). 



The Rule of law is, that, if an Agent is guilty of fraud Principal an- 

 in transacting his Principal's business, the Principal is hiTrraud 

 responsible (/) ; but the Agent must be acting within the 

 scope of his authority and in the course of his employ- 

 ment {g). 



Nor is there any difference in its effect between a mis- Misrepresen- 

 representation made by an Agent, which is collateral to tation coi- 

 the contract, and one which is embodied in the contract, contract" 

 the fraud of the Agent in either case, if committed in the 

 course of his employment, rendering the contract voidable 

 as against the Principal, without its being shown that he 

 was privy to it (A). 



A master sent his Servant with a Horse to a Fan-, at Damas-e 

 such a distance that the Servant was obliged to put the ^^^?^ ^^ ^^^ 

 Horse up for the night ; and the Servant put him up in a ° ° 

 stable belonging to a tenant of his master. The Horse 

 was glandered, and the tenant brought an action against 

 the master for damages sustained by him in consequence 

 of the loss of Horses and cattle by infection. It was held 

 by the Court of Session in Scotland, that placing the 

 Horse in the tenant's stable was an act done by the 

 Servant in the proper execution of his duty, and for which 

 the master was liable, upon proof merely of the Servant's 

 knowledge of the disease {i). 



If a person sells goods, supposing at the time of the con- Undisclosed 

 tract that he is dealing with a Principal, but afterwards Principal, 

 discovers that the person with whom he has been dealing 

 is not the Principal, but Agent for a third person, though 

 he may in the meantime have debited the Agent with it, 

 he may afterwards recover the amount from the real Prin- 



(e) Lewis v. Nicholson, 21 L. J., Stock Bank, L. E., 2 Ex. 259, 265 ; 



Q. B. 316. Swift V. Winterbotham, L. R., 8 



(/) See per Parke, B., Murray Q. B. 244, 254; Mackay v. Com- 



V. Mann, 2 Ex. 539 ; Cornfoot v. mercial Bank of New Brunswick, 



Fowke, 6 M. & W. 358; MackayY. L. R., 5 P. C. 394, 411, 412; 43 



Commercial Bank of New Briinsivick, L. J., P. C. 31; Chit. Contr. 10th 



L. R., 5 P. C. 394 ; 43 L. J., P. C. ed. 627 ; and see Swire v. Francis, 



31. L. R., 3 App. Cas. 106; 47 L. J., 



[g) Coleman v. Riches, 16 C. B. P. C. 18 ; IFeir v. Barnett, L. R., 



104 ; Udell v. Atherton, 7 H. & N. 3 Ex. D. 32. 

 172. (») Balrdv. Graham, 14 Court of 



(/() Barwiek v. English Joint Sess. (Sco.) 615. 



