Is duly exercised, privity of contract arises between the

principal and the substitute, and the latter becomes re-

sponsible to the former for the due discharge of the duties

which his employment casts upon him, as if he had been

appointed agent by the principal himself."

Where an agent is authorized to employ a sub-agent

and to create privity of contract between him and his

principal, the agent will not be liable for the negligence or

misconduct of the sub-agent employed by him, so long as

he has used reasonable care and diliofence in choosing such

sub-agent. Thus we find it laid down in Story on

Agency (9th ed., sect. 201) ; " The agent will not ordinarily

be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of the sub-

agent, if the employment of the sub-agent is authorized by

the principal either expressly, or impliedly, by the usage

of a trade, or the usual dealings between himself and his

principal, and he has used reasonable diligence in his

choice as to the skill and ability of the sub-agent. The

same rule will apply where the employment, although not

so authorized, arises from unforeseen exigencies or emer-

gencies, imposing upon the agent the necessity of employ-

ing a sub-agent. But the sub-agent will, under such

circumstances, be himself directly responsible to the prin-

cipal for his own negligence or misconduct; for wherever

any such express or implied authority to appoint a sub-

agent is allowed or given by the principal, a privity is

created between them. Under other circumstances, as no

])rivity would exist between them, the sub-agent would

be directly responsible only to his immediate employer, the

original agent."

Whenever an agent employs a sub-agent for his own

convenience, and without the authority of his principal,

E

50 The law of agency.

there is of course no privity of contract between the

principal and the sub-agent, and the original agent remains

solely liable to the principal.

Cohh V. Becke (1845), 6 Q. B. 930; here it was laid

down that, as a general rule, there is no privity of con-

tract between the London agent of a country solicitor and

the client in the country ; and that the former therefore

cannot maintain an action against the latter for his fees,

nor the latter against the former for negligence. The

"ratio decidendi" in this case was affirmed in Bobbins v.

Fennell (1847), 11 Q. B. 248.

J?i re Mutual Aid Permanent Benefit B wilding Society,

Ex parte James (1883), 48 J. P. 54, & 49 L. T. 530 ; here

the secretary of a benefit building society employed his own

private clerk, who was not an officer of the society, to trans-

act certain business of the society. The directors had at

Various times drawn cheques which were, by the directions

of the secretary, given over to his clerk for the purpose

of being paid by him to the withdrawing members ; but

Instead of being so applied, they were misappropriated by

the said clerk. The Court held that the secretary was

liable for the acts of his clerk.

Skinner v. Wegiielin (1882), 1 C. & E. 12; here an

agent, wlio had been employed by the plaintiff to collect

certain sums of money due to the said plaintiU', was held

to be liable to his jjrincipal for all the monies that had

been received by a sub-agent whom he had employed,

oven though such sub-agent had been employed with the

knowledge of the principal.

( 51 )

CHAPTER IV.

RIGHTS OF AN AGENT AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL.