AUCTIONEER AGENT FOR BUYER AND SELLER. 477 



specially granted to the occupiers of two closes lying beyond A, and 

 except by one of these ways the occupier of A could not reach the high- 

 way. The Court of Exchequer held that if the conveyance of A was 

 executed first, there was a way (the shortest) by implied grant ; and if 

 last, by implied reservation {Pinnington v. Galland). 



Where, as in lleivs v. Cair, the plaintiff put up for sale by public 

 auction a quantity of timber, several lots of which were unsold, and a 

 few days afterwards the defendant called upon the auctioneer, and 

 selected from the catalogue two of the unsold lots, which he agreed to 

 purchase, and the latter then wrote, in the defendant's presence, his 

 name in the catalogue opposite these lots, it was held by the Court of 

 Exchequer that tfie auctioneer was not the agent of the defendant so as to 

 Vmd him by signing his name, and that there was no sufficient note or 

 memorandum of the bargain to satisfy the 17th section. Bramwell B. 

 said : "■ The observations of the Court, in Graham v. Musson, must 

 not be misunderstood. There the Court said that if the traveller 

 had signed the defendant's name, and had not expressed any dissent, 

 that would have been a recognition of agency. Here the auctioneer 

 signed the defendant's name, not purporting to act for him, but as 

 the person who sold the goods. It is now established that an 

 auctioneer at the time of the sale is agent for loth huyer and seller ; lut 

 as soon as the sale is over, the reason for the rule fails, and he is certainly 

 not the agent of the buyer, unless he has some authority to act on his 

 part." 



The mere entry by an auctioneer's clerk of the price at which a lot is 

 knocked do^^Ti is not sufficient to satisfy the 19th section of the Statute 

 of Frauds. Pierce v. Corf, 9 L. E. Q. B. 210. 



In Ockenden v. Henly, one of the conditions of a sale by auction was, 

 ^' If the purchaser shall fail to comply with the conditions, the deposit shall 

 le actually forfeited to the vendor, who shall be at liberty to re-sell, and 

 any deficiency upon re-sale, together with the expenses, shall be made 

 good by the defaulter, and on non-payment shall be recoverable as 

 liquidated damages, but any increase of price at the second sale shall 

 belong to the vendor." Default having been made by a purchaser at 

 the auction, and the property re-sold at a reduced price, it was held, by 

 the Court of Queen's Bench, that the vendor could recover from the 

 defaulter, in addition to the deposit, only so much of the difference 

 between the two prices, and of the expenses of re-sale, as the deposit 

 did not cover. 



And j;er Lord Camphell C.J. : " We think the difference between the 

 balance of the purchase-money on the first sale, and the amount of the 

 purchase-money obtained on the second sale, or in other words the 



