EEPOSITORIES AJJD AUCTIOKS. 



35 



Liable to an 

 action for 

 negligence. 



Or for 

 conversion. 



An auctioneer intrusted with goods for sale by public Not to 

 auction has no implied authority to warrant them {g). warran . 



If an auctioneer has notice that property intrusted to To sell for 

 him for the purpose of sale does not belong to his principal, ^^^'^ owner, 

 and yet continues to seU, he is personally liable for the 

 produce of the sale (h) ; and in such case the true owner 

 of the property is entitled to recover the real value of 

 the property sold, and not merely what it fetched at the 

 auction, as that sum could not be assumed to be its real 

 value («). 



An action lies against an auctioneer employed to conduct 

 a sale for negligence in his management of it. As where 

 the seller had to make the purchaser compensation, in conse- 

 quence of the property having been improperly described 

 by the auctioneer who had been employed to prepare par- 

 ticulars, and sell the property (k). 



Where an auctioneer, by an unauthorized sale, deprives 

 another of his property permanently or for an indefinite 

 time, he is liable to an action for conversion (I). The case 

 of Cochrane v. Hi/mill (m) is an instance of wrongful conver- 

 sion by an auctioneer. In that case the plaintiff by agree- 

 ment let some cabs on hire to one Peggs, who took them to 

 the defendant, who was an auctioneer, and obtained an 

 advance on them. The defendant by Peggs' instructions, 

 and without any notice of the plaintiff's property in the 

 goods, subsequently sold them by auction, and having re- 

 couped himself for his advance, commission, and expenses, 

 handed over the balance to Peggs ; and it was held by the 

 Court of Appeal (affirming the judgment of Lord Coleridge, 

 C.J.), that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages 

 from the defendant for conversion of the goods, and Bram- 

 well, L. J., in the course of his judgment said, " It is, no 

 doubt, a very hard case for the defendant who has acted 

 innocently throughout in the matter ; but setting aside 

 the hardship of the case, the law applicable to it is quite 

 clear. Here is Peggs, a man who is not the true owner of 

 these goods, but appearing to act as such, but who has no 



(ff) Payne v. lord Zeconfield, 51 

 L. J., Q. B. 642 ; 30 W. E. 814. 



{K) Sardacre v. Stewart, 5 Esp. 

 103 ; La/vis v.Artinffstall, 49 L. J., 

 Ch. 609 ; 42 L. T., N. S. 507 ; 29 

 W. E. 137. 



(j) Davis V. Artingstall, ubi 

 siipra. 



{k) Parker v. Farebrother, 2 V. 



E. 370 ; and see Torrance v. Bolton, 

 L. E.. 8 Ch. 118; 42 L. J., Ch. 

 177. 



[t) Siort T. Bott, L. E., 9 Ex. 

 86, 89 ; 43 L. J., Ex. 81 ; 30 L. T. 

 N. S. 25; 22 W. E. 414. 



(m) 40 L. T., N. S. 744; 27 

 W. E. 776. 



D 2 



