36 



HORSEDEALEES, REPOSITORIES AND AUCTIONS. 



Selling horses 

 comprised In 

 bill of sale. 



Horse sent to 

 a repository. 



power whatever to sell, takes them to the defendant and 

 gets a loan from him on them. The defendant keeps them 

 and finally sells them in such a way as to pass the property 

 in them to the buyers, and if that is not a conversion, then 

 I think there can be no such thing. Supposing a man were 

 to come into an auction yard holding a horse by the bridle 

 and to say, ' I want to sell my horse : if you will find a 

 purchaser I will pay commission.' And the auctioneer says, 

 ' Here is a man who wants to sell a horse ; will anyone buy 

 him ? ' If he then and there finds him a purchaser and 

 the seller himself hand over the horse, there could be no 

 act, on the part of the auctioneer, which could render him 

 liable to an action for conversion. But, looking at this 

 case, there is a clear dealing with the property and exer- 

 cising dominion over the chattel, and a delivery of it by 

 the defendant to another person to do what he likes with 

 it." 



But where the plaintiffs were the holders of a bill of sale 

 including certain horses and harness : and the grantor of 

 the bill of sale, without the plaintiff's knowledge, took the 

 horses and harness to the defendant's repository for sale by 

 auction and they were entered in the catalogue, the defen- 

 dant knowing nothing of the bill of sale ; but before the 

 auction the grantor of the bill of sale sold the horses and 

 harness by private contract in the defendant's yard, and the 

 purchase-money was paid to the defendant, who deducted 

 his commission and paid the balance to the seller, the horses 

 and harness being delivered to the purchaser ; it was held 

 that the defendant was not guilty of conversion («). For 

 the defendant had received the horses and harness from the 

 grantor of the bill of sale, and had delivered them back to 

 the person to whom the grantor of the bill of sale had given 

 a deHvery order ; he had not claimed to transfer the title, 

 and he had not purported to sell ; all the dominion he exer- 

 cised over the chattels was to re-deliver them to the man, 

 the person from whom he had received them had told him 

 to re-deliver them (k). 



Where a horse is sent to a common repository, for the 

 sale of_ horses, an authority to sell is implied, although no 

 authority was ever given in fact, and the owner will be 



(i) National Mercantile Bank v. 

 Eymill, 44 L. T., N. S. 767— C. A. 



{k) Ibid., per BramweU, L. J. 

 See also Turner v. Hockey, 66 L. J., 

 Q. B. 301 ; Barker v. Furlong, 



[1892] 2 Ch. 172; 60 L. J., Ch. 

 368 ; 64 L. T. 411 ; 39 W. E. 621 ; 

 Consolidated Co. y. Curtis, [18921 1 

 Q. B.495; 61 L. J.,a. B. 32S ; 40 

 W. E. 426. 



