ISBN: 9781130705751

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 352 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.7in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Pur… More...

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 352 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.7in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1889 edition. Excerpt: . . . having that knowledge, does not convey to them an assurance that he is selling on his own account; on the contrary it is equivalent to an express intimation that the cotton is either his own property or the property of a principal who has employed him as an agent to sell. A purchaser who is content to buy on these terms cannot, when the real principal comes forward, allege that the broker sold the cotton as his own. If the intending purchaser desires to deal vith the broker as a principal and not as an agent in order to secure a ri ht to set-off, he is put upon his inquiry. Should the broker reuse to state whether he is acting for himself or for a principal, the buyer may decline to enter into the transaction. If he chooses to purchase without inquiry, or n0tvithstanding the brokers refusal to give information, he does so with notice that there may be a principal for whom the broker is acting as agent; and should that ultimately prove to be the fact, he has, in my opinion, no right to set off his indebtedness to the 2 principal against debts owing to him by the agent. 78 It was argued for the appellants, that in all cases where a broker, having authority to that effect, sells in his own name for an undisclosed principal, the purchaser, at the time when the principal is disclosed, is entitled to be placed in the same position as if the agent had contracted on his ovn account. That was said to be the rule established by George v. Cla(ett, 2 Sm. L. C. 8th Ed. 118; Sims v. Bond, 0 B. and Ad. 389, and subsequent cases. It is clear that Livesey Sons and Co. were not mere brokers or middhnen, but were agents within the meaning of these outhorities, and if the ar meut of the appellants were well founded they would be entitild. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN., RareBooksClub<