334 



3 Ves. Jr. 625 ; and of Lord Alvanley, in Bramley 

 V. Alt, considering Howard v. Castle as only a 

 decision, that where all the bidders, except the 

 purchaser, are puffers, the sale shall be void. On 

 moving for the rule nisif three of the court expressed 

 themselves unfayourable to it ; still it was granted, 

 but afterwards it was discharged, Mr. Sergeant 

 Wilde not supporting it. It has also been held in 

 Bexwell v. Christie, Cow. 395, that where an auc- 

 tioneer had received directions not to let a horse gc 

 under £15, and had sold it for less, on which ar 

 action was brought against him by the owner foi 

 the difference, the auctioneer would not have beer 

 justified in arranging a bidding under £15, as iu 

 would have been a fraud on the sale ; and, conse- 

 quently, he was not liable. The seller ought tc i 

 have made it a condition that there should be nc 

 bidding under £15. 



I have already adverted to the general question; 

 of agency, but I have not alluded to a case oi 

 considerable importance in horse-dealing transac- 

 tions, where grooms and ostlers are frequently i 

 intrusted to sell; it is in the case of Capel v.\ 

 Thornton, 3 Carrington and Payne, 352; where il| 

 was held, that " an agent authorized to sell goods j 

 has (in the absence of advice to the contrary,) an im- • 

 plied authority to receive the proceeds of such sale.' 



