REPOSITORIES AND AUCTIONS. 47 



law the auctioneer, being a stakeholder, is not entitled to 

 notice of the contract being rescinded (k). 



An auctioneer, being a mere stakeholder, is not liable -A-s to interest. 

 ' for interest on the deposit to the vendor (l). 



An auctioneer has a lien upon the goods sold by hina, Auctioneer's 

 and a right of lien upon the price when paid, for his ^^^' 

 commission and charges (m). With this object he may- 

 bring an aetion in his own name for the price of the goods 

 sold by him. Accordingly, where the defendant pleaded 

 to a declaration for the price of a horse sold and delivered 

 by the plaintiff, who was an auctioneer, that the plaintiff 

 sold the horse as auctioneer, agent and trustee for K., and 

 that defendant hadj paid K. before action brought, this 

 plea was held on demurrer to be a bad plea («). 



Where a horse is sold at a repository on certain condi- When the _ 

 tions, one of which, for instance, may be, a power to return P"'"^ "^ ™ 

 the horse within a certain time, if he does not answer his 

 warranty ; it has been held that the price which the auc- 

 tioneer has received does not vest in the vendor until the 

 conditions have been complied with (o). 



Where an agent on a sale receives as the price of an Price obtained 

 article money obtained by the fraud of his principal, it is t)yprmcipals 

 not money received to the use of the principal, but to the 

 use of the purchaser of the chattel. Thus, a horsedealer 

 employed an auctioneer to sell a horse for him, and to make 

 certain representations which amounted to gross fraud. 

 The horse was sold and paid for, but before the money was 

 paid over the fraud was discovered and the money returned 

 to the purchaser. The horsedealer brought an action 

 against the auctioneer to recover the money so received by 

 him. But it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that 

 he could not recover, as the principle of Murray v. Mann (p) 

 applied with the greatest force to this case. And it was 

 said that it would be a discredit to the law of England 

 if the innocent agent of the plaintiff's fraud were bound 

 to pay the money over to him. For if he did so after 

 notice he would be liable to an action at the suit of the 

 purchaser (q). 



(i) Duncan ,. Cafe, 2 M. & W. Q. B. 250. 



244. (o) Sardingham v. Allen, 5 C. B. 



{i) Harington T. Sogart, 1 B. & 796. 



ji^d. 577. (p) Murray Y. Mann, 2 Eich. 



(m) C'oppinv. Craig, 7 Taunt. 243 ; 538. 



17 E. R. 508 ; Robinson v. Butter, (q) Stevens v. Legh, 2 C. L. E. 



24 L. J., Q. B. 250. 251. 



(«) Robinson v. Rutter, 24 L. J., 



